The Kremlin School of Negotiation

by Igor Ryzov

Turns out, a street thug is stronger than any sportsman trained in a sports hall. Why? Well, while a sportsman may have specific skills and training, they’ll be lacking experience of hand-to-hand contact. The real fighter to be reckoned with is the one who not only has a perfect mastery of technique, but who also knows the tricks used on the street.

Negotiations cannot be won or lost. What you can do, however, is determine exactly where you are in the negotiation process, and what the next steps need to be.

Now, I realise that the negotiator is no ruler, but negotiation carries with it the same requirement to get smart, shall we say.

Postulate 1: keep quiet and listen attentively to what your opponent says Keep quiet and listen.

Postulate 2: ask questions The negotiator listens. Then they ask questions. In doing so, they can steer the conversation as their own interests dictate. Negotiators who find themselves listened to and asked questions will often take the bait and talk more; offer more.

You must fight for the role of ‘host’. This is crucial. If you feel you’re being asked more questions than strictly necessary, know that with every question asked you are being drawn further from your goal. So you must break this chain and seize back the initiative through counter-questions.

Postulate 3: impose a scale of values or ‘depreciate’

Postulate 4: ‘roll out the red carpet’

The red carpet rule is the essence of the fourth postulate of the Kremlin school of negotiation: making the opponent an offer they can’t refuse.

Postulate 5: put the opponent in the zone of uncertainty As a buyer I know from a major federal chain once put it: ‘No one has ever squeezed better terms out of a supplier than those the supplier squeezes out of themselves.’

Under what circumstances is it ethical to use such negotiation methods?

Never sacrifice your own interests to maintain a relationship. That is no marriage of equals. Strategically, you stand to lose both the relationship and your negotiation benefit. Your opponents are most likely simply banking on your desire to ‘do the right thing’.

The first is the ability to defend your interests, i.e. to play the strong lion, see your goal and pursue it. The other two are the ability to manage your emotions and the emotions of your opponent, i.e. to be a circumspect and slightly cunning fox.

In my view, the answer to this question is obvious. The sales manager chose the wrong negotiation method. They went into negotiations along that old Napoleonic principle of ‘We’ll engage in battle, and then we’ll see.’5 This is, in fairness, a particularly Russian approach.

Value is something your opponent is willing to pay you for.

Once again, I would like to note that combat is not a ‘tough’ position: it is simply the stage of negotiations that begins when both parties understand the benefit the other side seeks.

And for this, you need to foster the three most important components of trusting relationships. They are: 1. Attentiveness to the opponent and their values. 2. An ability to listen. 3. Professionalism.

you encounter a ‘teenager’, it is important to show them that you are emotionally stronger than they are. When they sense your strength, they will be forced to change their negotiation strategy and stop their provocations.

So you should remember the words of Winston Churchill: ‘You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks.’

Under no circumstances should you enter negotiations if you don’t truly believe in your cause. When a negotiator doesn’t believe in the strength of their own position, they are doomed to failure.

you’re right, act, and if you’re wrong, you simply haven’t put enough time into crafting your argument.

Let’s see. Here, the golden rule is this: tempting though it may be, don’t try to take everything from them. Having promised you the world, chances are that the ‘mouse’ will hide away and no longer negotiate with you.

a negotiator is behaving like a ‘mouse’, there’s no point putting pressure on them and taking everything. Show them there is a road to life (as already described) and roll out the red carpet. They will happily walk down it.

This is a very common behaviour model, and it’s pretty self-explanatory: the ‘tank’ is a confident person, but not a courteous one. Our society often approves of this behaviour, and as a result tank-ish behaviour is precisely what many strive for.

Never try to exchange a benefit for the opponent’s favour without a fight. You will lose your benefit, and you won’t gain their favour.

If in negotiations you are completely unarmed and find yourself against an opponent who is armed to the teeth, then negotiations aren’t going to bring you anything good.

This is now a constructive discussion. Had the vendor started offering discounts and the like from the start, he would have been drawn deeper and deeper under the ice. But he kept his focus and, at the right moment, ‘kicked’ in the right direction.

We will see what the right way of responding to attacks like this is in the next section, where we will look at emotions.

Experience shows that in negotiation, the best tactical and strategic results are achieved by those who skilfully combine concern for their opponent with confidence when defending their own interests.

They demonstrate both confidence and courtesy. They know how to assert their opinion, but also how to show concern for their opponent. They manage to withstand pressure, yet know how to exert it when needed.

Three: a ‘leader’ doesn’t prove, he reasons, using only strong arguments to boot.

Maximum results are achieved by negotiators who adopt the ‘leader’ model when fighting for the benefit. For this, it is important to have a strong level of results-oriented motivation and to act in a courteous way – as the situation dictates.

Whereas real success – ambition in the good sense of the word – is a product of personal effectiveness.

LEARNING TO TELL A COMPROMISE FROM AN UNNECESSARY CONCESSION

Compromise is significantlymore than a simple concession

Time: the time we spend on the negotiations themselves. • Energy: the energy we put into preparing and holding these negotiations. • Money: the cost not of the contract, but of the ongoing negotiations. • Emotion: the emotional toll of the negotiations.

And where negotiations are concerned, we will often spend 80 per cent of our time around the negotiating table discussing matters that not only bear little relevance to the negotiation process itself, but that have little – if anything – to do with the matter at hand.

In short, if we don’t expand our repertoire of moves, we make life easier for our opponent.

Niccolò Machiavelli’s principle – ‘Men, when they receive good from him of whom they were expecting evil, are bound more closely to their benefactor’32 – kicks into action.

Most of the time, behind negative remarks lies either a certain aim – a desire to get something – or a concern of some kind. The objective of any good negotiator is to recognise which is the case and act accordingly – that is to say, to approach the target or step away from the exchange, if partnership isn’t possible at the given time.

These are what will help you to gain that ‘strength in indifference’ we saw in Chapters 2 and

Remember: negotiations cannot be won or lost. But what you can – and must – do is know where you currently are in the negotiation process, and what steps you need to take next.