Getting More: How You Can Negotiate to Succeed in Work and Life

by Stuart Diamond

So to persuade people with different perceptions, you must start with their perceptions, not your “facts.” This is very counterintuitive for a lot of people. So if you don’t say to your dad, “Dad, tell me why you like smoking,” the conversation about his quitting is not happening. He’s not even listening to you until you start where he is.

In millions of different ways, people get into personal conflicts because they haven’t asked the question “Do they mean what I think they are saying?” In psychology, this mistake is called fundamental attribution error. You assume that everyone else reacts to things the way that you do.

CLOSING THE PERCEPTION GAP How do we solve these problems of miscommunication and perception? The first thing you must realize is that these problems occur all the time, everywhere. First, question the language being used to see if you both mean the same thing.

From now on, when you have a conflict with someone, ask yourself: (a) What am I perceiving? (b) What

are they perceiving? (c) Is there a mismatch? (d) If so, why?

You may have done this in an ad hoc, unstructured way at times in your life. Now you should make such questions a specific, conscious part of your negotiations repertoire. This means that you need to understand both parties’ biases...

When you ask someone for their perceptions first, you value them, so they are then much more interested in listening to what you have to say.

And this is why it is generally senseless to interrupt

someone. When someone is interrupted, the tapes of what they were saying are still playing in their head. Mostly, they don’t hear you. Listening declines further if they get mad about the interruption. What you must do first in a negotiation is get them ready to listen to you.

One good way to find out the other person or party’s perceptions is to ask questions. In a negotiation, questions are far more powerful than statements.

A statement commits you to whatever you said; it doesn’t get you any information, and it gives the other side something to throw things at. You become the target. A question, on the other hand, doesn’t commit you, usually gets you information, and gives you something to throw things at if you wish. Questions focus the other side on themselves. Almost everything you say in a negotiation should be a question. It helps you find out if they really intended to communicate what you first think they mean.

Questions also give the other party a better chance to participate in the conversation. You might learn something valuable. At the least, by asking them for their perceptions first, you have valued them.

But there are all sorts of ways to ask questions. A favorite of mine is the tactic of the somewhat dated TV character Columbo: “Help me out here, I’m confused…” It’s a powerful way to ask a question—asking for the other person’s help. Here’s another powerful question stated in collaborative terms: “Please tell me where I’m wrong here.” If they tell you where you’re wrong, you get information that will help you in the next negotiation. Again, the negotiation isn’t over until you say it is. If the other person can’t tell you where you’re wrong, you become more persuasive. I am forever asking people to tell me where I’m wrong, from a colleague to the CEO. It’s a small thing, but remember, negotiations are very sensitive to the exact words used. It is the precision that matters. God, not the devil, is in the details. The more precise you are in communicating your thoughts, hopes, dreams, feelings, and information in general, the less chance there is of miscommunication and a failed negotiation.

THE COMMUNICATIONS GAP AND HOW TO FIX IT

Here are the basic components of effective communication: (1) always communicate, (2) listen and ask questions, (3) value, don’t blame them, (4) summarize often, (5) do role reversal, (6) be dispassionate, (7) articulate goals, (8) be firm without damaging the relationship, (9) look for small signals, (10) discuss perceptual differences, (11) find out how they make commitments, (12) consult before deciding, (13) focus on what you can control, and (14) avoid debating who is right.

FIRST THINGS FIRST: YOU MUST COMMUNICATE This goes against the conventional wisdom, but it is ignored to bad effect. Except in the most extreme cases (if they have harmed a loved one, for example), you should try to talk with the other person—even if you hate them.

THEIR WORDS AND PERCEPTIONS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOURS This brings up the second point about the list on this page: Listening to the other side and asking questions. Validating their perceptions. What you say is less important than what they say. What you think you said is less important than what they think they’ve heard. In order to persuade them, you need to listen to what they are saying, verbally and nonverbally. The more you try to blame them, the less they will listen. The more you value them, the more they will listen.

Most people persuade themselves by talking. If the other party insults and threatens you, the correct response is, “Tell me more.” The more you know about a person, the better you can see how they think, the better you will be able to visualize the pictures in their heads. And the better negotiator you will be.

VALUE THEM, DON’T BLAME THEM Studies done with both children and adults over the past fifty years show that blaming people reduces performance and motivation. Praising people, on the other hand, improves both. I mentioned valuing them in Chapter 2. Here is the communication part.

SUMMARIZE WHAT YOU ARE HEARING Sum up what you think you are hearing with some frequency, and play it back to the other side in your own words. It values them and makes sure you are both still on the same page. They can see that you are

listening to them, making it more likely that they will listen to you. And if you don’t have it quite right, they can correct a misunderstanding. To emphasize, just because you think you are being crystal clear doesn’t mean the other side understands it the same way, whether it’s your customers, friends, competition, or spouse.

It also gives you a chance to package, or frame, information in ways that put things in perspective: “As I understand it, you like our products better than theirs but you are still buying theirs.” Or “I got the highest rating in the department but I’m not getting a bonus, while others have. Is my understanding right?” Or “You’re saying, son, that even though you got ...

ROLE REVERSAL Role reversal means putting yourself in the shoes of the other party. It is one of the most important tools in this book. It will give you a better idea of the other person’s perceptions, of the pressures they may be under, of their dreams and fears. In other words, to understand people, you have to try to feel their pain, their happiness and uncertainty, and address it in your negotiation strategy. And you have to let them know you are trying.

People frequently are unable to express their feelings. It’s your job to find out what is really behind people’s comments. How do you do this? By trying to find out more about them, by putting yourself in their shoes, by trying to see the pictures in their heads.

Practice being the other side. Have your colleagues play you. Go through a negotiation simulation. You don’t need a lot of fancy theories. You just need knowledge of how to practice, the will to practice, and a little time. It will make you a stronger negotiator.

BE DISPASSIONATE

The right answer is, “Why do you think I’m an idiot?” Why is it the right answer? First, you get information for that negotiation, or the next negotiation. The best negotiators are dispassionate, and continue to ask for information.

STATE AND RESTATE YOUR GOALS Goal-setting is not just something that is done at the beginning of a negotiation—you need to check on your goals frequently.

TONE AND EMAILS Negotiation is very sensitive to the exact words—and tone—used. If you have a hostile tone, if you insult someone, if you are ornery, the impact of what you are saying will be lost.

If you have to use email to communicate, what can you do to minimize problems? Here are some suggestions: • Add tone back in. Start with “Please hear this email as…” And then insert words like “friendly,” “constructively critical,” “sad,” “frustrated,” etc. This increases the chance that the recipient will read the email in the tone that you intended. At the least, it will soften negative reactions. • Never send an email based on your first reaction to one you’ve received. Most people know to avoid this, but too few people do it. You want to get it off your plate or save time. Actually, you will save more time by holding on to it and looking at it half an hour later than by sending it and spending hours or days correcting a misimpression. • Before sending the email, reread it as the other person would read it in their foulest mood. Most emails come across as more aggressive than intended. You should think about the pictures in their heads in the worst case. It will reduce risk. • Do role reversal. Mention something relevant to them first in the email—the equivalent of small talk. “Hope you’ve recovered from your cold.” “Heard you had a lot of snow.” It tends to make you more of a person, and will better approximate a face-to-face meeting where there is more human contact. • Try never to send an email if you are upset or angry. You will say things you didn’t mean to say. Write the email if you wish, store it as a draft, and reread it later. • Try to keep your emails short. ...

a lot of time to review. If you need to send a report, enclose it as an attachment; note the time frame (“at your convenience” or “in the next few days”) in which you would appreciate a read. This is sensitive to their time and avoids their putting their hand to their forehead and saying, “Oh geez, another long email!” • If you are writing a particularly sensitive email, have a colleague or friend review it before you send it. A fresh pair of eyes usually helps. • If you have to send the email and you are in a bad mood, take yourself out of the equation. Start the email by saying, “I’m in a really bad mood, so please forgive the tone,” or whatever else needs forgiving. • Humor is effective if they view humor the same way. Wry turns of phrase are like small talk. Finally, think about the other person’s communication style. Try to approximate it as closely as possible. You are not trying to mimic them; you are trying to translate for them.

PAY ATTENTION TO SIGNALS

Most people will give you the means to persuade them if you watch and listen carefully. Too often, we don’t notice enough about others. Noticing signals of all sorts—verbal and nonverbal—provides much information that can be used for persuasion. If the other person says, “I can’t possibly do that for you at this time,” you should ask, “When can you do it?” or “Who else can?” If they say, “This is our standard contract,” you should ask, “Have you ever made an exception?” If they say, “We never negotiate on price,” you should ask, “Well, what do you negotiate on?” Look at every word, inflection, action.

In thousands of different ways, small and large, if

you listen and watch other people carefully, they will give you the means to persuade them.

FIND OUT HOW THEY MAKE COMMITMENTS

This was discussed in Chapter 2, as effective commitments involve both the pictures in their heads and how those pictures are communicated. The subject is noted again among the major communication tools listed on this page for easy reference. Of course, there is some overlap. For the communication part, suffice it to say that you need to have an explicit conversation about how they make and keep commitments.

CONSULT BEFORE DECIDING Let’s say you are making a decision that affects other people. It may be a decision to go to the movies or a restaurant, build a new store or factory. You don’t consult everyone that it affects; you make the decision on your own. What happens? The first thing that most likely happens is that people will oppose you just because you have devalued them. You didn’t think enough of their opinions to ask them, even though the decision affected them. It doesn’t matter whether they have anything worthwhile to say, or whether you already know what they are going to say. By failing to consult them, you are alienating people. Instead of saving time, it will cost you time. They will go out of their way to think of roadblocks. This is because you sent a nonverbal signal that their opinions were not worth hearing. The second thing that most likely happens is that

you won’t get what are often good ideas that you might not have considered.

YESTERDAY IS GONE We have no control over what happened yesterday. As much as we’d like to change yesterday, we can’t. Fighting over what happened yesterday will never get you anywhere in a negotiation. Fighting over yesterday has three main outcomes: (a) war, (b) litigation, or (c) no deal. It is expensive, time-consuming, and painful, and often will not end the conflict. And it leads people to lose sight of their goals.

The orientation of the parties—either toward yesterday or tomorrow—is one of the major differences between negotiation and litigation. Litigation focuses people on yesterday and blame. Negotiation focuses people on value and tomorrow, or, indeed, today.

WHO’S RIGHT IS POINTLESS IN NEGOTIATION Assigning blame and punishment is a natural human reaction. Yet it is very difficult, psychologically, for the other person to agree to be punished. And it’s hard to admit you are wrong; it makes you appear less valuable, to yourself and others. Blame almost always requires a third party: a judge, a jury, a referee. If you want to argue over who is right, you will find it much harder to get them to meet your goals. Instead, you

will have to pursue the more expensive alternatives—litigation, third-party arbitration, or war. It is better to ask negotiation questions: What do we do now and how do we prevent this from happening again?

Each tool in this chapter is subtle. Each requires only small changes in what you say in a negotiation. You don’t have to use all these tools at once. Try one or two of them. Practice them. Build some confidence, and get results. Then try something else. But remember the watchword of this chapter, immortalized by Professor Godbole in David Lean’s film A Passage to India: One cannot tell anyone anything unless they are ready to hear it.

4 Hard Bargainers and Standards

Using the other person’s standards is one of the great negotiation tools that most people don’t know about. Standards are especially effective with hard

bargainers. Few people know about them, fewer people use them, and almost no one understands the psychological levers that enable them to work in all kinds of situations. I’m not talking about “objective” standards, or criteria that you think are fair. Standards, as used here, are criteria that the other party thinks are fair, or promises they have made.

How does it work? It is a fundamental tenet of human psychology that people hate to contradict themselves. So if you give people a choice between being consistent with their standards—with what they have said and promised previously—and contradicting their standards, people will usually strive to be consistent with their standards. Of course, no tool works all the time. But you will get much more from using these tools. People will violate their own standards less often, and you will get what you want more often.

THE POWER OF STANDARDS A standard is a practice, policy, or reference point that gives a decision legitimacy. It can be a previous statement, promise, or guarantee. Or it can be a practice agreed upon by the other party for a negotiation.

Company policy is a standard. Essentially, it says, “These are our rules.” Another standard, equally powerful, that can be invoked is “Has your company in its history ever made an exception to company policy?”