Bite-Size 2018-06-10T02:53:58+00:00

Bite-Size

Looking to keep your finger on the pulse, but short on time?

Enjoy our collection of bite-size thoughts and ideas on negotiation! From commentary on breaking academic research, to watercooler analysis of recent global politics, we keep you informed and your mind sharp… so you can be at your best when you need to negotiate for yourself or your organisation.

Want to see a subject covered here? Contact us using the form at the bottom of the page, and we’ll add it to our blog schedule!

1611, 2018

The Value of Understanding It Yourself

Tags: |

“Our tech guys took a look at the deal and they don’t think it’s good enough value for money. You’ll have to drop the price a bit for us to consider it.”

What kind of reaction do you think the above sentences would receive? An immediate apology and drop in price, or confusion and defensiveness? In our experience, it is difficult enough to challenge anybody’s beliefs while maintaining a positive relationship… let alone making it more difficult by challenging them using only somebody else’s authority to back you up.

If you want to be the best negotiator possible, you should have at least a basic understanding of the concepts and language being used for each component of the deal you are currently working on. You might never be a field-leading expert, but you should be able to coherently discuss any of the factors of the field without risk of being perceived as too lazy to do your research, or simply too incompetent to understand it.

You might very well have ‘tech guys’ who understand the specifications of the servers you are buying much better than you, but this is no excuse for failing to have them explain to you that the servers simply won’t have enough storage space, or uptime reliability, or whatever trait they may be taking objection to within the example above. Simply passing the buck to them may absolve you of the responsibility of presenting the argument yourself, but it also shows that you have dodged the responsibility of learning enough about the deal you are trying to take charge of.

Even if you do want to play “good cop, bad cop” and pass off authority, there is still never any harm in knowing the concepts yourself, and will certainly give you opportunities to engage with objections or arguments if you feel this will be advantageous in the moment. Having too much knowledge will rarely get you in trouble, and it strengthens so many other core competencies within your negotiating toolbox that it is borderline inexcusable to not know exactly what you are talking about.

1411, 2018

The Deal of Theseus

Tags: , |

When deciding between two or more competing solutions that each have their own strengths, it can be valuable to repeatedly and hypothetically modify each solution, reconsidering their merit each time, until the choice becomes clearer.

Imagine you are deciding to live in the Central Business District of a major city, close to work and entertaininment, or on a gorgeous rural property with sweeping vistas and unique flora and fauna all around. The difference between the two lifestyles offered up by these choices can be so overwhelming that you simply may not know where to begin in evaluating them.

One mental tool you can use to assist you in this process is a “slight modification” exercise, where you modify each deal (keeping only its core features intact) and then reconsider how they stack up against each other. This can reveal important factors or decision-making processes that you could not see previously, helping you return to the original decision with more insight.

Consider now an alternate choice – between Industryville, a productive but relatively bland suburb just a 15 minute drive from everything you’d want to do around the city, and Greensborough, a much leafier and spacier suburb that lies 45 minutes out from the CBD.

Again, you seem to be weighing up proximity against pleasantness, but the tangibility of this choice may make the decision much easier. You might decide that as you’re going to have to drive anyway, you’d really rather the natural beauty of Greensborough to come home to, and you can just put on a podcast in the car to distract you. Or perhaps that extra half hour of driving is going to be a killer for you in the long term, and you’ll get sick of driving so often, so you’ll just take Industryville and maybe throw some pot plants around the place.

Now that you have considered the modified example (and you don’t always need to make them more similar – you can also modify them in other ways, or even add to each deal!), you can take this insight back to the original question. If you can’t stand a regular 45 minute drive, how will you sit with a 3-hour drive to any entertainment prospects over the long term? Or if the simple suburbs of Industryville would make you claustrophobic, how on earth will you deal with the skyscrapers and constant city noise of the CBD?

Thinking outside the box can help you think within the box, too. If stuck with a difficult decision, consider using this mental tool to learn more about yourself and the decision you face.

1211, 2018

Polarise Your Options

Tags: |

Would you rather be stuck at home, at a beautiful national park, or on the highway in between the two?

Unless you’re a rare breed that enjoys peak hour traffic and being surrounded by other frustrated drivers, you’d much prefer to be either at home or the national park. Home offers the obvious advantages of comfort and freedom, whereas the national park likely offers nicer scenery and prospects of adventure. 1-mile-an-hour traffic flow in between offers neither.

Remember that the same concept applies to negotiation and deal-making. If each party to the negotiation is directly opposed on five separate issues, it may satisfy neither party to just meet in the middle on every single one. You may be better off giving the opposition everything they want on Issue X, just so you can get everything you need on Issue Y in return.

Balanced deals absolutely have their place, and are often the most optimal solution — particularly if you run heavy risks if you overly compromise on any specific issue. Just don’t forget that polarised deals can be equally viable, for instance when negotiating your wage versus vacation time, or trying to buy a product for later resale that absolutely needs to have a standout feature.

1011, 2018

Dream Big… Carefully

Tags: , |

“In trying to find a language that wasn’t culturally specific, the framers of the [Universal Declaration of Human Rights] eventually settled on a style that assumed, rather than reflected, universal acceptance. The end result, says Associate Professor Reinbold, was an avowedly secular document that carried a curiously religious tone and logic, [which] limited the appeal of universal freedoms during much of the Cold War/post-colonial period.”

The language you use when negotiating with others matters, and it must vary based on who you are talking to and what you want to achieve.

To some, extremely friendly or cooperative language may signal weakness or overinvestment in the relationship. For others, it is a simple prerequisite of any healthy partnership, and an insistence on aloof professionalism will strike them as suspicious or strange.

Aspirational language that seeks to philosophically and morally unite everyone engaged in the agreement can sometimes produce greater happiness or satisfaction with the deal… but it can also inspire cynicism, or set up impossible goals that cause people to turn away from the deal when any cracks begin to show.

There is no shame in being a dreamer, nor any shame in practicing simple pragmatism when the situation requires it… as long as the choice is made consciously.

With thanks to: ABC

811, 2018

60-40 Doesn’t Mean 60-40

Tags: , |

Why is it that even small polling differences nationwide can lead to a massive difference in political representation?

The answer is that polling percentages don’t get automatically reflected — or, more accurately, balanced out — across an entire nation. If Republicans are favored 60-40 in every single individual race across the USA, then Republicans will win every one of those races, and the actual representation will end up 100-0 in Republican favor.

Spend some time thinking about how this applies to your negotiated agreements, and to the structure of your organisations and work groups more generally.

For example, it doesn’t take a room full of antagonistic negotiators to leave a possible deal in ruins. It may only take a simple majority, or even a single, vindictive negotiator who has undue influence over everyone else’s attitudes and modes of thinking.

And if every component of a negotiated deal leans just a little on the side of bad faith or distrust, then the sum of those parts could feel outright hostile, or read as a declaration of war.

Beyond the good versus bad dichotomy also lies the question of what values, frames, and thought patterns you are dealing with. Even if only one person in the room really cares about the screen size of the laptops you want to buy, if they can influence a majority of that room to value their opinion, the entire sales process may come to revolve around that single factor.

So don’t just estimate the popularity of others’ opinions and desires; pay attention to how that popularity will actually manifest in more tangible outcomes, and whether it is over- or under-represented.

With thanks to: FiveThirtyEight

611, 2018

Aspirational Lockout

Tags: , |

“Indeed, as the renegotiations of NAFTA and KORUS suggest, the US is pursuing a “20th century” approach to trade, using its considerable leverage to force markets open and increase its advantages at all costs. Any potential American re-engagement with the TPP thus seems likely to undermine its “21st century” provisions and increase the unilateral benefits to Washington.”

Not all negotiated agreements are purely transactional or pragmatic in nature. Some agreements also try to be aspirational — they set lofty goals and values for all involved, and the principles behind the agreement may be considered vastly more important than any individual outcome.

If you gain a reputation as a self-interested actor, you may find yourself locked out of these aspirational deals.

Even if you could contribute value to the agreement, and even if every single other party would be better off with your involvement… the simple suspicion that you will undermine the integrity or intent of the agreement may be enough to sideline you permanently.

When guarding your reputation, try to move beyond considerations of ‘greedy’ versus ‘selfless’, or ‘cooperative’ versus ‘stubborn’. Think also in terms of what values you are aligning yourself with, and whether you can bear being locked out of agreements based on oppositional values in the future.

With thanks to: The Lowy Institute

 

311, 2018

New Data, New Senses

Tags: |

“For example, the app could link to your morning alarm to get the day started with the smell of coffee, or could add fragrances to texts so that messages from different friends come with distinct aromas.”

It might sound bizarre, but international researchers are now working hard to find ways to transmit tastes and smells through smartphones. If the technology pans out, humanity will almost certainly adjust to it within a matter of years, just as we have adapted to the existence of person-specific ringtones, or even the use of the Internet generally.

In today’s world, it is no longer sufficient to simply be on the lookout for new data. We also have to keep watch for entirely new data channels — new senses — that are being established all the time.

When negotiating with others, listening to what they say and reading what they write may be only half the challenge. Be on the lookout for other communication channels that they are trying to establish with you; their selection of a very serious, solemn cafe might be entirely incidental, or it might be a deliberate message to you about the changing nature of your relationship.

With thanks to: IEEE Spectrum

2910, 2018

Everyone Has A Place

Tags: |

“Spinifex grass: it’s spiky, dominates a quarter of Australia, and has no recognised grazing value. To top it all off, people have reportedly experienced anaphylactic shock from being pricked by its sharp leaf tips.”

Nature is full of creatures that are highly evolved to cause harm to others, but beautiful nevertheless — think of the majesty of a proud lion, or the silent efficiency of a great white shark. We might not like these creatures, but we inherently recognise their value and role in the world.

We should also remember, though, that even nature’s more minor annoyances have their place too, and can even be far more vital or impactful for local ecosystems. Spiny spinifex grass might annoy us when we walk through it, but hopping mice and mallee emu wrens use it as a “fortress of safety”, using it to forage and dine in peace from larger predators.

Similarly, everyone has their place, and virtually every negotiating style has a certain arena in which it shines. An especially prickly teammate might not be the right pick to wine and dine your clients, but you can be equally sure your clients won’t be able to flatter their way to a better deal through him.

This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work to become better negotiators and versions of ourselves… but our biggest weaknesses often disguise powerful, symbiotic strengths, that we can try to maintain in the process.

With thanks to: The Conversation

2910, 2018

More Than Meets The Eye

Tags: , |

“Both sides had said they hoped to avoid a legal battle. Given that Samsung is one of Apple’s biggest suppliers, the companies had a strong incentive to move beyond their dispute and build on their ongoing partnership. Yet the two-day mediated talks between the CEOs in late May ended in impasse, with both sides refusing to back down from their arguments.”

The 2011 legal battle between Apple and Samsung just keeps on giving to those learning negotiation. Two key thoughts for today:

  1. If you asked 100 people about the relationship between Apple and Samsung, probably all 100 would describe them as technological competitors. This is certainly true, and yet Samsung is also a major supplier to Apple, and they have a vested interest in working together. Even seemingly clear-cut negotiations or relationships very often have more to them than meets the eye.
  2. Incredibly strong relationships and incentives to work together are still no guarantee that this will actually happen. The very natural need to ‘be right’, and to feel that you have stood up for your beliefs, can be just as powerful a force in the opposite direction.

With thanks to: Harvard Program on Negotiation

906, 2018

Don’t Be Bernie Sanders

Tags: , |

“Notably, Sanders has downplayed his willingness to compromise and accommodate. His gruff image is more in keeping with his portrayal of himself as someone bucking against Washington corruption and cronyism.”

Political candidates in head-to-head races often divide themselves into two categories: the “insiders” who can work across the bench and get things done, and the “outsiders” with a revolutionary plan to shake up the establishment.

Realistically, both compromise and resolution are necessary in any field — whether you’re representing millions or buying your first car. Great negotiators possess the flexibility and self-awareness to switch styles when necessary… regardless of what signals they try to send about their personality.

With thanks to: The Harvard Program on Negotiation

Want to stay up to date? Bookmark this page, and check back fortnightly for new content!

Find Out More

Subscribe to our Newsletter
Get exclusive access to world-class negotiation advice and product launches, so you can stay on top of your game.
Join today!
close-link