Start with No: The Negotiating Tools that the Pros Don't Want You to Know

by Jim Camp

negotiating a “wise agreement,” as defined in Getting to Yes, the leading win-win book on the market today. A quick look at that definition will be highly instructive. It reads: “A wise agreement can be defined as one that meets the legitimate interests of each side to the extent possible, resolves conflicting interests fairly, is durable, and takes community interests into account.”

It is absolutely imperative that you as a negotiator understand the importance of this point. You do NOT need this deal, because to be needy is to lose control and make bad decisions.

Tough negotiators are experts at recognizing this neediness in their adversaries, and expert in creating it as well.

“Bill, my name is Bob Jones. I’m not quite sure that we as a venture fund fit where you’re going. I just don’t know. What I’d like to do is meet with you so we can see where you’re going and you can look at where we’re going at First Advantage and see if there’s a fit. When’s the best time on your calendar?”

One of my best students started out with an insatiable desire to make sure his voice was heard. This guy was bright and always wanted people to know that he was as informed and on top of things as anyone in the room. He needed to feel important. Okay, thought his shrewder adversaries, we’ll be happy to let you feel important as we skin you alive. This is a common issue that hard-driving, alpha-male types have to deal with daily: They want to know it all, or, short of that, they want to be seen to know it all. The adrenaline kicks in, the neediness becomes a biochemical fact, then the neediness becomes a biochemical addiction. It’s true.

“Well, Mary, I have no idea whether what we do has any relevance for your business. I just don’t know, maybe it doesn’t. If not, just tell me and I’ll be on my way, but if whoever handles your market research …” And off you go—or not. It doesn’t matter. Your neediness is under control.

When emotions run hot and heavy in negotiations, the high-pitched voice is a sure sign of need. The rushed delivery is another sure sign. While needy negotiators raise their voices, negotiators under control lower their voices. So lower your voice in times of inner turmoil. Slow down.

The serious negotiator understands that he or she cannot go out into the world spending emotional energy in the effort to be liked, to be smart, to be important.

As a negotiator aspiring to excellence, you must, at all costs, avoid showing need.

Camp-trained negotiators never show need, only want. “Need” is death, “want” is life. Believe me, this different attitude will be instantly perceived by the folks on the other side of the table.

negotiation. By letting your adversary be a little more okay, you start to bring down barriers. By allowing him to feel in control, you, like Columbo, are actually in control.

dressed to the nines

In a negotiation, decisions are 100 percent emotional. Yes, 100 percent.

Our so-called rational mind kicks in only after we’ve made the decision, in order to justify it after the fact.

Say no if you want to, it’ll be okay, no hard feelings, but we think the fair thing is for you to buy the two old systems.

“no.” To them he wrote, “Please tell me if you’re not going to support my application through the admissions process. I’d appreciate knowing this now, because if you cannot support me, I’ll move on to the other schools I’m interested in.”

And there it was: “A negotiation is an agreement between two or more parties, with all parties having the right to veto.”

Have you ever wondered how the jerks of the world get along? How some even get ahead? How a very few even get to the top? These people don’t get away with their boorish, offensive behavior for no good reason. They get away with it because they’re effective in their work and bring benefit to their business relationships, in one way or another.

Unnecessary fear of a bad decision is a major stumbling block to good decisions.

Take responsibility for the bad decision, learn from it, embrace the failure, and soldier on without fear because you are only one decision away from getting back on track.

If I were a beginner in the study of decision-based negotiation (as opposed to emotion- and compromise-based negotiation), my initial goals would be to focus at all times on my mission and purpose, to control my neediness and never demonstrate neediness, to always allow my adversary to be okay, to have no fear of saying or hearing “no”—the subjects of the preceding chapters.

Goals you can control, objectives you cannot. By following your behavioral goals, you get to your objectives. One last time:

What you can control is behavior and activity, what you cannot control is the result of this behavior and activity.

The Power of Correct Questions Asking questions is a science and an art. The science is in how you intellectually construct a question. The art is found in how you ask it: your tone of voice, your creative choice of words, your behavior and remarks before asking your question. So now we’re going to get pretty technical, and we have to, because technique is everything here.

In every case, which is the better question? “Is this the biggest issue we face?” versus “What is the biggest issue we face?” “Is this proposal tight enough for you?” versus “How can I tighten this proposal?” “Can we work on delivery dates tomorrow?” versus “When can we work on delivery dates?” or “How important are delivery dates?” “Do you think we should bring Mary into the loop now?” versus “Where does Mary fit in?” or “When should we bring Mary into the loop?” “Is there anything else you need?” versus “What else do you need?” “Do you like what you see?” versus “What are your thoughts?” “Is it too expensive?” versus “What price would you pay?” “Does it fit into your needs?” versus “How do you see it? or “Where would you use it?” This rule about interrogative-led questions is not rocket science. Negotiators have been taught for decades to ask open-ended questions, and interrogative-led questions are simply one type of open-ended questions.

Back to business. How many times have you made the steam engine mistake and failed to correct your error? How many times have you gone into a meeting for one reason, only to find out that you were there for a completely different reason? How many times have you looked at the way someone was dressed and made an assumption, good or bad, that you later discovered was completely wrong? When was the last time you made an assumption based on the car someone was driving? We’re talking Columbo here, of course: You never want to make the mistake that his suspects make, underestimating him. Anyone with much experience in business

We’ve all been to social functions where someone seems to know it all, and he makes the ridiculous assumption that people enjoy hearing him unload his vast stores of knowledge. But what really happens when you find yourself trapped in that situation with that guy? For one thing, you may feel unokay and get a little defensive and resentful and turn him off entirely. How seriously do you take him? How much do you remember of what he said? Talk about a bad assumption: His assumption that you’ll be impressed by all his talking literally takes him out of the game. (Here’s another assumption, on my part this time: This blowhard/gasbag/know-it-all will be a man. Funny about that.)

People—negotiators—have to feel safe in order to reveal their pain and, perhaps, even to see it clearly themselves. They definitely will not expose their pain if they think the adversary will try to take advantage of them. Who would? So your challenge as a negotiator is to discover and paint for your adversary the clearest possible picture of their pain while always nurturing.

You cannot tell anyone anything. Think about this and be sure you agree with me. You can only help people see for themselves.

“Your greatest strength is your greatest weakness.” I quote these words from Emerson for the second time,

Only the money budget is numerical. The other two employ a different kind of assessment, but one that we can keep up with quite accurately. My rough-and-ready formula for calculating the overall budget for a negotiation gives “time” a value of x, “energy” 2x, “money” 3x, and “emotion” 4x. Obviously, these are not empirically based numbers. They’re a way to drive home the point of relative importance.

Remember, time is 1x, energy 2x, and money 3x, roughly and relatively speaking.

“Tammy, my name is Bill Jones and I need your help. What are the criteria I must meet to have an audience with the president? Tammy, who would have the ear of the president on matters of supercomputers capable of putting billions of dollars into the Treasury without any additional taxes?” “Well, I recommend you speak with the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Smith.” “Tammy, do you know his most competent assistant I might talk to?” “Why yes, she’s a classmate of mine, Betty. Would you like me to transfer you to her number?” “I’d appreciate that. Would you be so kind as to tell her why I am calling? It’s very difficult to call out of the blue, as you know.” “Yes, I’ll be glad to do that. Let’s see if we can reach her.” A fantasy, yes, but this approach will get you somewhere. Don’t just get around the blocker, but also get a useful introduction from the blocker. This is much easier to do when you understand what the blocker is really doing, which is trying to feel okay.

Engage in a little nurturing. “Bill, I’d like to make a deal with you. I’d like to go over our proposal with you. If what I present to you is not acceptable and you know it won’t fly, just tell me no, it won’t fly, and I’ll go away. Fair? Fair. That will be our deal. If you like what I propose and feel it is what the committee is looking for, all I ask is that you allow me to represent myself to the committee. Fair?”

“Bill, I understand that under no circumstances will anyone but you talk to the committee. All I ask is if you don’t like what I show you, just tell me no and I’ll get out of your hair. But if you like our proposal and wish to recommend it to the committee, all I ask is that you let me coach you on my proposal and what you might say. Allow me to wait out in the hall, just in case there are any questions the committee wants answered. That way you are protected with adequate information in case something unexpected comes up. Fair? That will be our deal.”

“Bill, I understand that no one is to be present during the committee meeting, even in the hall. All I ask is that you allow me to coach you on what to say, and if any question arises, allow me to wait in your office. You can call me there and I can provide you any information you need. Of course, if you don’t like my proposal today, it’s okay, you won’t hurt my feelings. Just tell me no and I’ll go away. We’ll take a shot at working with you next time around.” If Bill still balks—unlikely, but possible—consult your time-and-energy budget, because this situation doesn’t look promising.

Take a moment and be certain that you understand the implications of this rule: The only agenda that is valid for purposes of negotiation is the one that has been negotiated with the adversary. The more effective you are in negotiating the agenda, the more comfortable the adversary organization will be in allowing you into the inner sanctum. Your competence will be appreciated and embraced.

If he creates a clear picture of pain, with vision to follow, he does not need to make any formal presentation.

If you have worked effectively to paint the pain, a presentation is simply a waste of time and energy. If you have not painted the pain, the presentation is no substitute for your failure to do so, and it won’t do you any good now.

I hate to see clients burn their bridges, no matter how ill-served they feel. For one thing, it betrays neediness on their part.

“Amanda, I can’t do that. I just can’t, but I sure want to work with you. How can we find an alternative solution?”

little conflict brewing, simply ask, “What would you like me to do, Jonathan? I’m at your service.”

When you find yourself talking too much, try the simplest reverse there is, combined with an interrogative-led question: “But enough from me, Pete. How do you see all this falling into place?”

You’re not expecting a mistake-free performance; your neediness is under control. I suggest beginning this first test negotiation with a five-step process. First, you make certain you have a good, strong mission and purpose that’s set in the world of your adversary, one that is designed to let the adversary see and decide that the benefits and features of your product or service or whatever are what they wish to acquire. (See chapter 4.) Second, you make sure that you know the adversary’s real pain—the real reason they’re negotiating. You ask questions, you create vision. (See chapter 9.) Third, you assess all the budgets involved—time-and-energy, money, and emotional investment—for both you and your adversary. You never forget about these budgets, you monitor them at all times, and you see how they seem to be influencing the decisions on both sides. (See chapter 10.) Fourth, you make certain you’re dealing with the real decision makers. (See chapter 11.) Fifth, you don’t make a phone call, you don’t write an e-mail, without writing down an agenda for that phone call or e-mail. (See chapter 12.)

The Thirty-three Rules • Every negotiation is an agreement between two or more parties with all parties having the right to veto—the right to say “no.” • Your job is not to be liked. It is to be respected and effective. • Results are not valid goals. • Money has nothing to do with a valid mission and purpose. • Never, ever, spill your beans in the lobby—or anywhere else. • Never enter a negotiation—never make a phone call—without a valid agenda. • The only valid goals are those you can control: behavior and activity. • Mission and purpose must be set in the adversary’s world; our world must be secondary. • Spend maximum time on payside activity and minimum time on nonpayside activity. • You do not need it. You only want it. • No saving. You cannot save the adversary. • Only one person in a negotiation can feel okay. That person is the adversary. • All action—all decision—begins with vision. Without vision, there is no action. • Always show respect to the blocker. • All agreements must be clarified point by point and sealed three times (using 3+). • The clearer the picture of pain, the easier the decision-making process. • The value of the negotiation increases by multiples as time, energy, money, and emotion are spent. • No talking. • Let the adversary save face at all times. • The greatest presentation you will ever give is the one your adversary will never see. • A negotiation is only over when we want it to be over. • “No” is good, “yes” is bad, “maybe” is worse. • Abso...