Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People

by G. Richard Shell

Research indicates that the single most important step in becoming an effective negotiator is acquiring a habit of effective preparation. As the old saying goes: by failing to prepare, you prepare to fail. This chapter has introduced you to the basics of good preparation. It all starts with the Six Foundations, as you factor in personality, goals, standards, relationships, interests, and leverage.

Then, using the Situational Matrix, think about how you and the other side see the balance between relationship concerns and outcomes stakes. Finally, determine what strategies and communication methods are best suited to advance

Rapport opens communication channels that allow them to discuss their underlying interests and perceptions, all the while signaling their expectations and leverage.

It is during the information exchange stage that you have your first opportunity to explore the Six Foundations in action. You display your personality, express your goals, probe the other side’s needs, and test your assumptions about applicable standards,

Information exchange serves three main functions: (1) establishing rapport; (2) exploring interests, issues, and perceptions; and (3) signaling expectations and leverage.

First, they ask twice as many questions as average negotiators. These

Next, they test their understanding of what the other side has said by rephrasing it in their own words

found that “listening skill” ranked as one of the top traits of the best negotiators in that industry. The other top-rated skills? Willingness to prepare, knowledge of the subject matter being negotiated, ability to think clearly under pressure, and skill at expressing one’s thoughts.

to deliver a message. If you must deliver an ultimatum (or any other “deal breaker”), most experts agree that the best way to deliver bad news is to do it early, clearly, and credibly. That way

research suggests that direct appeals to the other party’s sympathy can be surprisingly effective. Ask the other negotiator what he or she would do in your position. Give the other party a “blank check” question like “What would it take for you to say yes?” If the other side provides their wish list, you may discover you have more leverage than you thought.

during the information exchange process. This stage accomplishes three purposes: First, the parties establish open communication by setting, if the situation permits, a friendly and personal tone. Second, they explore the interests and issues to be negotiated. Finally, they send signals regarding their respective leverage positions.

offers and counteroffers.

The “never open” rule is easy to remember—but, like most simplistic approaches to negotiation, it is often bad advice. How can you do better? The answer resides in something negotiation scholars call the “anchor effect.” The party that goes second may gain some valuable information, but the party going first gets the benefit of this effect.

aggressive opening and an outrageous one is this: The outrageous opening has no justification whatever to support it. The aggressive opening, by contrast, is a highly favorable interpretation of a standard or reference

The best practice is simple and easy to remember. After

identifying the issues, fears, and risks that are most important to each side and then “logrolling”—accommodating each other’s most important interests and priorities

situation (the balance between the outcome stakes and the ongoing relationship), your leverage (who has the most or least to lose from walking away?), and your own and your counterpart’s style (are you or the other person predictably competitive or cooperative?).

scarcity effect and overcommitment.

The scarcity effect is doubled if a credible deadline combines in the other party’s mind with scarcity based on competitive pressure.

Overcommitment, in combination with the contrast effect discussed in chapter 9, explains another common closing tactic used near the end of a negotiation. It is called the “nibble.” The Chinese Ministry of Commerce negotiators who showed up on the final morning, wanting to tweak some secondary issues, may have been trying this tactic.

At the very least, insist on a meaningful, reciprocal concession.

First, an impasse is not necessarily a bad thing. As

Second, the process can run aground at any stage, not just at the end.

Stop talking about the substantive issues. Start talking about the process itself. Ask the other side for suggestions on how to break the impasse.

By being the first to name the problem, you win the right to ask for proposed solutions. If you don’t like their ideas, you can offer some of your own. If their idea looks good to you, you’ll get credit for making a concession by agreeing to play by their rules. You should use these same three steps to get the conversation started about any impasse, large or small.

First, the “fundamental attribution bias” kicks in first.

Once I have labeled you in this way, confirmation bias and selective attention kick

use your emotions, don’t lose them. Your effectiveness at the table when emotions run strong requires you to be hyperaware of your own emotional “surges,” filtering them through the lens of their appropriateness to what has triggered them, and then expressing your legitimate feelings in the way best calibrated

As Aristotle once put it, using anger skillfully requires you to be angry with “the right person, to the right degree, and in the right way.”

Calm down enough to break the attack-attack cycle. Any conscious effort at self-control will help you regain your composure. Two anger-management tips from the Mayo Clinic are especially relevant to negotiations: take a deep breath and call for a short break. With your emotions in hand, move to what I call the “one small step” procedure. Make a small, unambiguous move in the other side’s direction, draw attention to it, then wait for reciprocity. If the other party responds in kind, you can repeat the cycle again, and so on until a normal relationship rhythm is restored.

GRIT (graduated and reciprocated initiatives in tension reduction).

trust at the table, you should ask the other side to

change negotiators