Negotiation techniques will be discussed in this article on business etiquette.
Having determined the general approach, that is, the negotiation strategy, it is necessary, after going through all the options, to outline the tactics for conducting them.
Let's look at the main tactics used in negotiations.
Let's start with the most productive and correct, from the point of view of old-fashioned ethics.
Correct negotiation techniques
With friendly relations between partners, with their desire to adhere to the method of principled negotiations, the basis business communication becomes a joint complete and in-depth analysis of the problem. It is best to start with those aspects in which the interests of both parties coincide. At the initial stage, it is necessary to avoid any mention (let alone emphasis) of differences in interests. Disagreements worsen the emotional atmosphere of negotiations, and the statement of common interests arouses mutual sympathy and sets a friendly and constructive tone for further discussion of more controversial issues.
Based on this, it is profitable and ethical to gradual increase in the complexity of the issues discussed. First, you propose to discuss the easiest of them, to realize those interests of yours that will probably not cause objections from your partner. By easily and naturally resolving a number of issues, you create a favorable psychological climate, win over your partner, demonstrate the possibility of reaching an agreement, and you yourself feel an emotional uplift.
The same principle underlies the search for a common solution zone, described in the book of American researchers W. Zartman and M. Berman. First, an agreement is reached regarding the content of the joint document, that is, the parties determine the general formula for the solution. And having come to an agreement in general, it is easier to move on to specifics, work out the details of the agreement reached, and negotiations proceed much faster.
On initial stage negotiations apply direct position opening method- a complete statement of your interests and needs, justifying the importance of their implementation.
A productive technique is dividing the problem into separate components (putting controversial issues out of brackets). Try to solve the problem not as a whole, but by dividing it into several elements. If it is not possible to reach agreement on any of them, it is better to “put them out of brackets,” that is, not to consider them at these negotiations. This is not an ideal outcome, but in many cases it is the only option. After all, a partial agreement is better than no agreement at all.
All these techniques are both beneficial and ethically impeccable. Now about methods that can be used both in a friendly, confidential discussion, and as a means of pressure in conditions of positional bargaining.
This is a classic packaging technique, when the problem is not divided into separate components, but, on the contrary, various issues are combined into a complex, called a package, and discussed as a whole.
Tough Negotiation Techniques
When conducting tough, confrontational negotiations, the package includes proposals that are attractive to the partner and those that are less acceptable, but very beneficial to the author of the package.
It is assumed that the partner, due to his extreme interest in one of the components, will put up with burdensome additions.
The package can be formulated as a result of discussion, and sometimes, if the parties are well aware of each other’s positions, it is proposed at the beginning of negotiations.Both within the framework of the method of principled negotiations and for the purpose of manipulating the opposite party, it is used block tactics. This technique can be used if the negotiations involve a large number of sides Some parties may, having formed a single bloc, prevent the adoption of any decision. And sometimes the unification of several parties performs a constructive function: in the process of negotiations, a decision is first made that suits the bloc, and thus the development of a final agreement is facilitated. Unfortunately, the method of principled negotiations (partnership approach) in pure form is extremely rare. Negotiations almost always contain elements of positional bargaining (a confrontational approach), and sometimes the negotiation process consists only of these elements.
Positional bargaining techniques are numerous and varied.
Fundamental technique - maximum overestimation of requirements. One of the parties seeks to defend the initially inflated level of its demands for as long as possible. At the same time, they include items that are obviously unacceptable to the other partner, but which can be removed without any damage to the party that put them forward, passing it off as a concession. And for this “concession” they demand reciprocal concessions.
This technique often leads to negative consequences, since such tactics cause distrust, and modern methods of objectively assessing the potential of the parties make the possibility of its use questionable.
Close to the one described is the method placing false accents in one’s own position. The party using it. demonstrates extreme interest in resolving an issue that in fact only matters to her secondary importance. Sometimes such actions are taken in order to get the necessary decisions on a more important issue by removing this item from the agenda.
The “salami” technique—providing information about one’s interests, assessments, intentions, etc.—is also incorrect. in very small portions, like thin slices of sausage. This is done in order to extract as much information as possible from the partner without completely revealing one’s position. force him to “open his cards”, and therefore gain an advantage, room for maneuver
The negative result for both sides of the use of “salami” is the prolongation of negotiations, and this technique is often used specifically to delay the negotiation process.
The desire to delay negotiations is more openly expressed in the method of leaving when one is not ready to solve the problem. reluctance to discuss the issue raised during the discussion. They ask, for example, to postpone consideration of the problem to another time, or simply ignore it. Sometimes an exit technique used to coordinate the issue with other organizations and carefully consider all aspects of the problem can benefit both parties.
Putting forward increasing demands. As one of the parties agrees with the demands being introduced, the other puts forward more and more new ones.
An interesting example of the use of this technique is given in the book by R. Fisher and W. Urey “The Path to Agreement, or Negotiations without Defeat.” The Prime Minister of Malta negotiated with Great Britain regarding the establishment of air and naval bases on Maltese territory. Whenever the British representatives thought that an agreement had already been reached, the Maltese said: “Yes, of course we agree, but there is still a small problem.” These "small problems" led Britain to eventually promise to pay £10 million or guarantee the jobs of all dockers and base workers for the duration of the treaty.
An incorrect technique such as ultimatum requirements is also often used. One of the parties declares: either you accept our offer, or we leave the negotiations.
At the final stage of positional bargaining, the technique of extortion (putting forward demands at the last minute) is often used. At the end of the negotiations, when it becomes clear that an agreement has been reached, one of the parties suddenly puts forward a new demand. The calculation is based on the fact that the other side, interested in signing the agreement reached and somewhat relaxed in the situation of successful completion of negotiations, will make a concession. Usually this trick achieves its goal. But at what cost? The partner will feel like a victim of deception, extortion, and after signing the contract, it is likely that he will break off relations (except for fulfilling contractual obligations) with incorrect negotiators. As for the “winner,” his reputation in the business world may suffer significantly. It happens that putting forward demands at the last minute leads to delays or even breakdown of negotiations.
Double interpretation. One of the parties puts a double meaning into the final wording of the contract, which the partner does not notice. Thus, it becomes possible subsequently to interpret the agreement in one’s own interests, without formally violating it.
Providing knowingly false information (bluff). Famous species The bluff is this trick: one of the negotiators says that someone has already promised him more favorable terms of the deal.
Reputable entrepreneurs regard this as tactlessness and blackmail.
What to do if your partner uses destructive, incorrect techniques? First of all, resist the temptation to respond in kind. In order to break the vicious circle of mutual attacks and conduct a mutually beneficial constructive dialogue with a partner, R. Fischer and U. Ury recommend several simple rules.
Rules of conduct for destructive negotiation techniques
Rule 1. Try to lead the aggressive partner away from his destructive positions. To do this, let him understand that constructive negotiations are primarily beneficial to himself.
Rule 2. If your partner continues his attack, do not rush into a counterattack. Better wait and let him speak. Try to listen carefully to all the arguments and demonstrate that you understand what is being said. Analyze the reasons why he behaves incorrectly, direct your efforts to discern his interests behind the rigid position of your partner.
Rule 3. Find several solutions to the problem and offer them to your partner. Ask him to formulate his options, and together with him, work on improving them. Try to predict with your partner what will happen if this or that option is accepted.
Rule 4. Not only don't mind criticism, but encourage it. Having stated your position, do not demand that you accept or reject it. Ask what exactly seems unacceptable to your partner and why (for example, like this: “What circumstances prevent you from taking my proposal into account
A very effective way to direct criticism in a constructive direction is to ask your opponent what he would do if he were in your place.
Rule 5. During the discussion, try not so much to assert something as to ask. Statements provoke objections, and questions provoke answers.
Rule 6. It is best to respond to a rude attack or a thoughtless, obviously ridiculous proposal with a long pause. The silence that reigns after a partner’s words usually causes him to feel awkward and guilty for the created impasse. If the partner was not completely sure that he was right, he would most likely try to find and offer another, constructive solution.
During negotiations, you need to be prepared to respond correctly to all the typical “dirty tricks.” In addition to those that we have already considered, sometimes this technique is also used: choosing a bad place for negotiations.
A partner can deliberately choose an environment that will force you, for example, to negotiate faster and to your detriment in order to leave an unpleasant place as quickly as possible. If you believe that the situation is affecting you unfavorably, openly state this, and calmly and politely offer to move to a more comfortable room, or to postpone the negotiations to another time.
Let's say your partner is deliberately lying, and you know it. What to do in this case? First, do not show that you doubt the veracity of your interlocutor. Your doubts, and even more so your accusations, will force your opponent to pretend to be offended and offended in the best of feelings. The most reasonable thing is to state that you always, and not just in this case, subject all factual statements of your negotiating partners to mandatory verification, that this is your principled position. It should be said as politely as possible, with an apology.
In any case, no matter how rude and aggressive the actions of the other side may be, no matter what tricks it uses, you should not demonstratively leave the negotiations or “slam the door.” This is the worst way out. Even if you thought that this problem It is not advisable to decide with this partner; you should not interrupt negotiations abruptly, no matter how harsh or insidious your partner may be.
The situation of negotiating with a clearly stronger partner deserves special consideration.
It should be noted that a strong (that is, having powerful financial or political support) partner does not mean omnipotent. Under no circumstances should you resign yourself to the idea that you will have to completely submit to his dictates during negotiations. The fact that a certain powerful company entered into negotiations indicates its interest. This means that the partners at the negotiating table are, in principle, equal.
So, don’t have a complex about the discrepancy between the “weight categories”. In order to more successfully defend your positions, take the advice of the already mentioned R. Fischer and W. Urey. Establish in advance the worst option that you can agree to (the highest price you can pay, or the lowest you can sell the product for, etc.). This will be your "limit". Having firmly decided not to go beyond the “limit”, it is easier to resist the pressure of a partner demonstrating his strength.
True, this remedy has a side effect: decisively setting a “limit” in advance prevents the search for a mutually beneficial solution.
To neutralize the negative effect, it is necessary to prepare an alternative option, that is, to think in advance what to do if the negotiations fail. Otherwise, with the threat of such a breakdown, the weaker side will develop fear and a willingness to make any concessions. And having a plan for what to do if a negotiation fails makes it easier to stay cool and achieve success.
When dealing with a strong partner (and a partner in general), you can refer to the norms of international law, the principle of equality, or the presence of a precedent in the history of relations between the parties conducting these negotiations or other legal entities. However, a strong partner will most likely not miss the opportunity to refer to one of these principles - the one that is more beneficial to him. Therefore, you should think in advance which principle you should proceed from, and which principle your partner will appeal to.
It is very effective to turn to a shared past, to a long-term “historical relationship” with a given partner. A typical example relations of developing countries with their former metropolis can serve. In negotiations with a powerful power more than weak sides — former colonies- strive to use availability common languages, culture, systems of social institutions.
A weak partner can also call on the stronger side to make concessions in the name of the future, for the sake of developing relationships, and establishing close ties for a long period.
The weaker party may resort to using a package where controversial issues combined with those on which it is easy to reach agreement.
In multilateral negotiations, weak participants can form a coalition and successfully confront a stronger partner.
So, you have planned everything, chosen an approach, thought about what techniques can be used during negotiations. Now worry about argumentation. Think about how to more convincingly justify your position, explain to your partner what you can and cannot do and why.
In contact with
Question 70. Business negotiations, types, principles, stages of the negotiation process. Negotiation tactics.
Negotiation is a means of communication between people intended to reach an agreement when both parties have coinciding or opposing interests.
Negotiations are intended mainly to obtain an agreement that meets the interests of both parties and achieve results that would suit all its participants, through a mutual exchange of opinions (in the form of various proposals to solve the problem brought up for discussion). They consist of speeches and counter-speeches, questions and answers, objections and evidence. Negotiations can proceed easily or tensely; partners can agree among themselves without difficulty, or with great difficulty, or not come to an agreement at all. Therefore, for each negotiation it is necessary to develop and apply special tactics and techniques for conducting them.
Business negotiations are a specific type of business communication, which has its own rules and patterns, using joint analysis of problems. Business negotiations are a tool for both internal and external communications.
There are two approaches to negotiations: confrontational and partnership.
Confrontational approach to negotiations - this is a confrontation between the parties, a kind of battlefield, i.e. Each side is confident that the goal of the negotiations is victory, and failure to achieve complete victory means defeat.
Partnership approach is implemented on the basis of a joint analysis of problems with a partner and the search for a mutually acceptable solution, in which both participants benefit.
Purpose of negotiations may consist of establishing connections, making decisions, concluding various agreements, coordinating joint conditions, coordinating events. The strategic goal of negotiations is to find a mutually acceptable solution, avoiding the extreme form of conflict.
The effectiveness of negotiations is determined by two criteria:
Negotiations should lead to a reasonable agreement (that best suits the interests of each party), if this is possible in principle;
Negotiations should improve or at least not spoil relations between the parties.
The goals of the negotiators may not coincide or even be opposite, so it is important to correctly formulate the goals of the negotiations. To do this, you need to clearly know both yourself and your partner (opponent): interests; position of the organization, industry, in the market of goods and services; existence of obligations (what and to whom); presence of business partners, allies; belonging of the organization to a political-economic group.
Preparing for negotiations. To achieve success in negotiations, you need to carefully prepare for them.
It is better to formulate tasks in a flexible manner so that they can be adjusted if necessary. As a rule, any negotiations lead to the signing of an agreement - a document legally worked out and verified by specialists.
The subject of negotiations can be any information on which there is no agreement, but it must be practical in nature and take into account the current situation.
Venue for negotiations. Negotiations can be held in your office or on your opponent’s territory. At the same time, every situation has its positive aspects.
If the meeting takes place on your territory:
You can always consult with partners or the person entrusted with negotiating, and if necessary, seek support and approval;
The opponent does not have the opportunity to terminate negotiations on his own initiative and leave;
You can do other things, you are surrounded by familiar amenities;
A psychological advantage is created: the opponent has come to you;
It is possible to organize the spatial environment in such a way as to effectively use the possibilities of non-verbal information.
If the meeting takes place on opponent's territory:
There will be no distractions, you can focus solely on negotiations;
you can “withhold” information, citing the fact that you do not have documents with you;
It is possible to contact your opponent’s manager directly;
Organizational issues are decided by the opponent;
Analysis of your opponent’s environment will make it possible to choose the most effective scenario for interacting with him.
If neither option suits the parties, they can meet on neutral territory.
Start of negotiations is the most difficult task. At the beginning of negotiations, mutual clarification of the interests, points of view, concepts and positions of the participants occurs.
Negotiation process always occurs at two levels: on one, the discussion concerns the substance of the matter, on the other, it focuses on the procedure for resolving issues, i.e. on how you will negotiate.
There are three principle negotiations:
Distinction - it is necessary to distinguish between the participants in the negotiations and the subject of negotiations;
Interests - focus on interests, not positions; f- options - before deciding what to do, identify all possible options for resolving the issue (look for options);
Criteria - try to ensure that the result is based on some objective criteria (look for criteria).
Negotiations take place three stages:
The stage of analysis in which it is necessary to collect information and think about it; understand the problem; determine the identities of your own and the other side;
The planning stage, at which you need to think about all possible options for solving the problem, predict a possible behavior algorithm for the other party and your reaction.
The discussion stage requires the use of four
negotiation principles.
After completing the negotiations, it is necessary to analyze the results and, summing up, find out:
What actions contributed to the success (failure) of negotiations?
What difficulties arose and how they were overcome;
What was not taken into account when preparing for the negotiations and why
What surprises arose during the negotiations;
Why it was not possible to diagnose the characteristics of the partner
What was the partner’s behavior during the negotiations, his personal characteristics;
What communication errors were made on both sides;
what principles of negotiation can be used in other negotiations;
What lessons need to be learned for the future.
A good negotiation result is considered by the authors as the sum of seven elements:
1. Interests. Involvement in negotiations always presupposes a result that would meet the main interests of the negotiator. The more you think about your interests in advance, the greater the likelihood of the possibility of satisfying them.
2. Options. Options refer to possible options for an agreement or parts of a possible agreement. The more options are provided for and prepared for negotiations, the more likely it is that there will be one that can reconcile the different interests of opponents.
3. Alternatives. A good outcome must be better than any alternative available outside the negotiating table - better than what you can do yourself or with the help of other people. Before you sign or reject any deal, you need to have a fairly complete understanding of ---- what the other options are.
4. Legitimacy. Nobody wants to be treated unfairly. Therefore, it is useful to find external standards that can be used to reassure partners that they are being treated fairly and to protect against unfaithful behavior by the other party.
5. Communications. All other things being equal, the outcome of a negotiation will be better if it is achieved skillfully, which requires good two-way communication as each negotiating party wants to interact with the other. You should think in advance about what questions you need to ask and what answers you might hear.
6. Relationships. A good negotiation outcome will result in the opponents' working relationship being strengthened rather than worsened. Preparation allows you to take into account the factor of human interaction - think about the people at the negotiating table. It is necessary to have at least some understanding of how to establish relationships that facilitate rather than hinder agreement.
7. Obligations. The quality of negotiations is also assessed by the content and reality of the promises that will be made during them. These commitments are likely to be easier to keep if one thinks ahead of time about specific promises that can actually be made or expected from the other party during or at the conclusion of negotiations.
Many secondaries believe that virtually everything that is desirable to know about a negotiation in advance can be established by thinking through these seven elements.
All business negotiations can be divided into several types.
Business conversation. This type of communication can be defined as oral contact between partners connected by a business relationship. In a modern, narrower interpretation, business conversation is understood as verbal communication between interlocutors who have the necessary authority from their organizations and firms to establish business relationships, resolve business problems or develop a constructive approach to solving them.
There are no uniform rules for preparing for a business conversation that are acceptable to everyone. However, the author indicates the following version of the scheme for such training:
Planning;
Collection of material and its processing;
Analysis of the collected material and its editing.
The purpose of planning is an attempt to soften and neutralize the influence of unexpectedly emerging new facts or unforeseen circumstances on the course of the conversation. Preparing and planning a conversation allows you to anticipate possible unexpected moments in advance, which reduces the effectiveness of the interlocutor’s comments. Planning a business conversation allows you to determine its specific tasks at the beginning of preparation for it, find and eliminate “narrow” ones.
Collection of material for a business conversation - a very labor-intensive process that requires a significant investment of time, including a search for possible sources of information. The volume of collected materials largely depends on the general awareness of the participants in the future conversation, the level of their professional knowledge, and the breadth of their approach to the problem intended for discussion. Collected and carefully selected factual data are systematized: by increasing the “concentration” of useful information, untenable, useless and less important facts are eliminated.
Analysis of collected material allows you to determine the relationship of facts, draw conclusions, select the necessary argumentation, i.e. make the first attempt to combine and link all the collected material into a single logical whole. It is necessary to supplement the material with text consisting of individual words and concepts, by connecting which you can get the meaning of what is presented. It is recommended to write down especially successful formulations without abbreviations.
The final stage of preparation for the conversation is editing the text, its final polishing and revision.
Commercial negotiations, to which the author assigns a special role in his book, he considers an unconditional and integral feature of the state’s market economy: “... as for... the profession of a manager, the ability to conduct commercial negotiations is one of the main components of his professional activity.” Main areas of work on preparing commercial negotiations:
- Solving organizational issues;
- Elaboration of the main content of negotiations.
On organizational issues should include determining the time and place of the meeting, as well as the formation of the quantitative and qualitative composition of the delegation.
When determining the time of a meeting, it is not customary to put pressure on a potential opponent, especially if the initiative for the meeting comes from you, so usually the interlocutor is asked to choose the time. The meeting place may be the premises of one of the meeting participants, although they can also take place on neutral territory.
More detailed work is carried out at the stage of development of the negotiation process itself. This process is divided into:
Problem analysis;
Formulating a general approach to negotiations, goals, objectives and one’s own position on them;
Definition possible options solutions;
Preparation of proposals and their argumentation;
Compilation necessary documents and materials.
Analyzing a problem is to find ways to solve it that require less cost and effort. Such paths can be found both in the sphere of unilateral actions and as a result of negotiations with partners. During the analysis process, possible alternatives for solving the problem are thought through. When analyzing the problem, it is necessary to pay special attention to the interests of the parties, which, however, do not necessarily contradict each other.
Based on an analysis of the interests of the two parties, a common approach to negotiations and their own position are formed, and possible solutions are determined. You should also consider possible proposals that correspond to one or another solution option and their argumentation.
Typically, the preparatory work ends with the writing of documents and materials. Writing in writing forces those preparing to negotiate to think about the accuracy of their wording. After all, "on paper" oral speech is changing beyond recognition." It is also necessary to collect comprehensive information about the company with which it is planned to negotiate. Relying on the importance of personal factors in achieving mutual trust and understanding between partners. It will not be useful to learn more about the management of the partner company and about those with whom the negotiations are to take place. negotiation.
Business meeting is a method of open collective discussion of certain issues and is classified depending on the importance and content of the problems brought up for discussion and the tasks to be solved, as well as on the location and duration of the work. In the most general view Preparation for the meeting includes the following actions:
making a decision to carry it out,
definition of topics,
setting the agenda,
defining the objectives of the meeting and its total duration,
start date and time,
composition of participants,
approximate work schedule,
leader training,
preparation of a report and draft decision,
preliminary preparation of participants and premises.
After the decision to hold the meeting is made, the composition of the participants is outlined. A sufficient number is invited, but only those who are really needed, in whose absence the meeting will become ineffective. Since the meeting involves free discussion, it is necessary to select disputants. Let us note that this is not about finding people pleasing to management, but about attracting fairly calm, self-possessed people to participate in the discussion, capable of correctly responding to opposing points of view and their owners.
Due to the diversity of negotiations, it is impossible to propose an exact model. The generalized scheme for their implementation is as follows: stages:
1. Preparation of negotiations
2. Negotiations
3. Solving the problem (completion of negotiations)
4. Analysis of the results of business negotiations
The success of negotiations depends entirely on how well you prepare for them. Before starting negotiations, it is necessary to have a developed model:
clearly understand the subject of negotiations and the problem being discussed. The initiative in negotiations will be with the one who knows and understands the problem better;
be sure to draw up sample program, scenario of the negotiations. Depending on the difficulty of the negotiations, there may be several projects;
outline moments of your intransigence, as well as problems where you can give in if a deadlock in negotiations unexpectedly arises;
Determine for yourself the upper and lower levels of compromise on issues that, in your opinion, will cause the most heated discussion.
The implementation of this model is possible if the following issues are studied during the preparation of negotiations:
1) the purpose of the negotiations;
2) negotiation partner;
3) subject of negotiations;
4) the situation and conditions of negotiations;
5) those present at the negotiations;
6) organization of negotiations.
3. Negotiations
In management practice when conducting business negotiations, the following basic principles are used: methods:
Variational method
Integration method
Balancing method
Compromise method
Variational Method
When preparing for complex negotiations (for example, if it is already possible to foresee negative reaction opposing party), find out the following questions:
What is the ideal (regardless of the conditions of implementation) solution to the problem posed in a complex?
What aspects of the ideal solution (taking into account the whole problem, the partner and his expected reaction) can be abandoned?
What should be seen as the optimal (high degree of probability of implementation) solution to the problem with a differentiated approach to the expected consequences, difficulties, and obstacles?
what arguments are necessary in order to properly respond to the expected assumption of the partner, due to the divergence of interests and their unilateral implementation (narrowing or, accordingly, expanding the proposal while ensuring mutual benefit, new aspects of a material, financial, legal nature, etc.)?
What kind of forced decision can be made in negotiations for a limited period?
What extreme proposals from a partner should definitely be rejected and with what arguments?
Such reasoning goes beyond a purely alternative consideration of the subject of negotiations. They require an overview of the whole subject of activity, creativity and realistic assessments.
Integration method . Designed to convince the partner of the need to evaluate the issues of negotiations taking into account social relationships and the ensuing needs of development-cooperation; The use of this method does not, of course, guarantee that agreement will be reached in detail; It should be used in cases where, for example, a partner ignores social relationships and approaches the implementation of his interests from a narrow departmental position. When trying to ensure that your partner understands the need for integration, do not, however, lose sight of his legitimate interests. Therefore, avoid moralizing calls that are divorced from the interests of your partner and are not related to the specific subject of discussion. On the contrary, express your position to your partner and emphasize what actions you expect from him within the framework of joint responsibility for the results of the negotiations.
Despite the discrepancy between your departmental interests and the interests of your partner, especially note the need and starting points for solving the problem discussed during the negotiations. Try to identify in the area of interests common aspects and opportunities for obtaining mutual benefits and bring all this to the consciousness of your partner. Do not indulge in illusions and do not think that you can come to an agreement on each point of negotiations; if this were actually the case, then negotiations would not be needed at all.
Balancing method . When using this method, keep in mind
the recommendations below. Determine what evidence and arguments (facts, calculation results, statistics, figures, etc.) should be used to encourage your partner to accept your offer. You must mentally put yourself in your partner’s shoes for a while, i.e. see things through his eyes. Consider the complex of problems from the point of view of the “for” arguments expected from your partner and bring to the consciousness of your interlocutor the associated advantages.
Also think about your partner’s possible counterarguments, “tune in” to them accordingly and get ready to use them in the argumentation process. It makes no sense to try to ignore your partner’s counterarguments put forward during negotiations: the latter expects you to respond to his objections, reservations, concerns, etc. Before moving on to this, find out what caused this behavior of your partner (not quite correct understanding of your statements, lack of competence, unwillingness to take risks, desire
stall for time, etc.).
Compromise method. Negotiators must show a willingness to compromise: in case of divergent interests of a partner, an agreement should be achieved in stages. In a compromise solution, agreement is achieved due to the fact that the partners, after a failed attempt to reach an agreement among themselves, taking into account new considerations, partially deviate from their demands (they refuse something, put forward new Proposals). In order to approach the partner’s position, it is necessary to mentally anticipate the possible consequences of a compromise solution for the implementation of one’s own interests (forecasting the degree of risk) and critically evaluate the permissible limits of the concession.
It may happen that the proposed compromise solution exceeds your competence. In the interests of maintaining contact with your partner, you can enter into a so-called conditional agreement (for example, refer to the consent in principle of a competent manager). It is difficult to quickly come to an agreement through concessions acceptable to both parties (for example, as opposed to the complete refusal of one of the partners from their demands" or the so-called "rotten" compromise); partners, by inertia, will persist in their opinion. Patience and appropriate motivation and the ability to “sway” a partner with the help of new arguments and ways of viewing the problem while using all the opportunities arising from the negotiations.
An agreement based on compromises is concluded in cases where it is necessary
achieve the common goal of negotiations when their failure will have adverse consequences for the partners. The above methods of negotiation are of a general nature. There are a number of techniques, methods and principles that detail and specify them
application.
1. Meeting and making contact. Even if it’s not a delegation that comes to you, but just one partner, you need to meet him at the train station or airport and take him to the hotel. Depending on the level of the leader of the arriving delegation, it may be met either by the head of our delegation himself, or by one of the participants in the upcoming negotiations. The greeting and making contact stage is the beginning of direct, personal business contact. This is a general but important stage of negotiations.
The greeting procedure takes a very short time. The most common in
In European countries, the form of greeting is a handshake, with the host giving his hand first. The conversation preceding the start of negotiations should be of the nature of an easy conversation. At this stage, business cards are exchanged, which are presented not during the greeting, but at the negotiating table.
2. Attracting the attention of negotiators(beginning of the business part of the negotiations). When your partner is sure that our information will be useful to him, he will be happy to listen to you. Therefore, you must arouse your opponent's interest.
3. Transfer of information. This action is to convince the negotiating partner, based on the aroused interest, that he will act wisely by agreeing with our ideas and proposals, since their implementation will bring tangible benefits to him and his organization.
4. Detailed justification of proposals(argumentation). A partner may be interested in our ideas and proposals, he may understand their feasibility, but he still behaves cautiously and does not see the possibility of applying our ideas and proposals in his organization. Having aroused interest and convinced the opponent of the feasibility of the planned enterprise, we must find out and differentiate his desires. Therefore, the next step in the business negotiation procedure is to identify interests and eliminate doubts (neutralization, refutation of comments),
The business part of the negotiations concludes with the transformation of the partner’s interests into the final decision (the decision is made on the basis of a compromise).
Completion of negotiations. If the progress of the negotiations was positive, then at the final stage it is necessary to summarize, briefly repeat the main points that were touched upon during the negotiations, and, most importantly, the characteristics of those positive points on which the parties agreed. This will make it possible to achieve confidence that all participants in the negotiations clearly understand the essence of the main provisions of the future agreement, and everyone is convinced that certain progress has been achieved during the negotiations. It is also advisable, based on the positive results of the negotiations, to discuss the prospect of new meetings.
If the outcome of negotiations is negative, it is necessary to maintain subjective contact with the negotiating partner. In this case, attention is focused not on the subject of negotiations, but on personal aspects that allow co-determination of the validity of proposals related to the continuation of negotiations, but on personal aspects that allow maintaining business contacts in the future; Those. It is necessary to abandon summing up the results of those sections where no positive results were achieved. It is advisable to find a topic that will be of interest to both parties, will defuse the situation and help create a friendly, relaxed atmosphere of farewell.
Protocol Events are an integral part of negotiations, bear a significant burden in solving the tasks set during negotiations and can either contribute to success or, conversely, create the preconditions for their failure.
Business protocol covers a wide field of its activities: organizing meetings and servicing negotiations, recording conversations, providing souvenirs, uniforms, cultural programs, etc. To resolve these issues, it is advisable to create a protocol group (2-3 people) in the organization, which will deal with protocol formalities.
Analysis of the results of business negotiations. Negotiations can be considered completed if their results are carefully and responsibly analyzed and the necessary measures are taken for their implementation; Certain conclusions were drawn for the preparation of the next negotiations:
Analysis of the results of negotiations has the following goals:
comparison of the goals of negotiations with their results;
determination of measures and actions arising from the results of negotiations;
business, personal and organizational implications for future negotiations or
continuation of those carried out.
The analysis of the results of business negotiations should take place in the following three areas:
1) analysis immediately after the completion of negotiations. This analysis; helps to evaluate the progress and results of negotiations, exchange impressions and determine priority activities related to the results of negotiations (appoint executors and determine the deadlines for implementing the agreement reached);
2) analysis for top level leadership of the organization. This analysis of the results of the negotiations has the following purposes: discussing the report on the results of the negotiations and clarifying deviations from previously established guidelines;
3) assessment of information about measures already taken and responsibilities;
determining the validity of proposals related to the continuation of negotiations;
obtaining additional information about the negotiating partner;
4) individual analysis of business negotiations is the clarification of the responsible attitude of each participant to their tasks and the organization as a whole. This is critical self-reflection in the sense of monitoring and learning from negotiations.
In the process of individual analysis, you can get answers to the following questions:
Have the interests and motives of the negotiating partner been correctly identified?
Did the preparation for the negotiations correspond to the real conditions, the current situation and the requirements?
How well defined are the arguments or compromise proposals?
How to increase the effectiveness of argumentation in substantive and methodological terms?
What determined the outcome of the negotiations?
How can we eliminate negative nuances in the negotiation procedure in the future?
who should do what to improve the effectiveness of negotiations?
Getting an objective and complete answer to the last question will play a role
critical to the future of the organization.
Conditions for effective negotiations. The prerequisites for the success of business negotiations affect a number of both objective and subjective factors and conditions. First of all, negotiating partners must fulfill the following conditions:
both parties must have an interest in the subject of negotiations;
they must have sufficient power to make final decisions (corresponding right to negotiate);
partners must have sufficient competence and necessary knowledge regarding the subject of negotiations;
be able to take into account the subjective and objective interests of the other party as fully as possible and make compromises;
Negotiating partners must trust each other to a certain extent.
To ensure effective negotiations, certain rules must be followed. The basic rule is to have both. the parties came to believe that they had gained something as a result of the negotiations. The most important thing in negotiations is your partner. He needs to be convinced to accept the offer. The entire course of negotiations, all argumentation must be oriented towards it.
Negotiation is collaboration. Any collaboration must have a common base, so it is important to find common denominator"for the different interests of partners. Rare negotiations take place without problems, so the tendency to compromise is important. Any negotiations must be a dialogue, so it is important to be able to ask the right question and be able to listen to your partner.
Positive results of negotiations should be considered as their natural conclusion, therefore, in conclusion, it is necessary to dwell on the content of the agreement, which reflects all the interests of the partners. Negotiations are considered completed if their results have been subjected to thorough analysis, on the basis of which appropriate conclusions have been drawn.
Main stages of negotiations, methods of presenting a position
Negotiations are management in action. The starting point of any management action is the definition of a goal. When it comes to managing organizations, we cannot limit ourselves to the question: “What do we want to achieve?”, but we must also pose the following question: “What is the problem that must be solved so that the goals of our organization can be achieved?” the best way"At the same time, one cannot limit oneself to superficial reflection and relying on memory. It is impossible to do without notes.
If a group is working on preparations for negotiations, then key problem You can write it on the board so that every employee has it written in front of their eyes at all times. The one who sets the unconditional acceptance of his point of view as the goal of negotiations is mistaken. He must remember that his decision is only one of the options for achieving the goal, but not the goal itself. Today this may be the only possible and reasonable path to the goal; all others may be unacceptable. Nevertheless, this is only a path, the goal itself remains somewhere ahead.
The second stage of practical management is planning. To simplify, we could say: a search is underway better way and its detailed study. Plans depend on the goal and the means. At the same time, funds are not only financial funds or material auxiliary resources, but also - no matter how harsh it may sound - people who implement decisions made, relying on your creative potential and opportunities. The subject of study should also be the circumstances surrounding the chosen solution option. Are there any legal contraindications? Are there any precedents? What are the possible consequences? Are we going beyond existing solutions? Was information of a probabilistic nature used?
There should be complete clarity on all these points by the start of negotiations. They outline the “playing field” of negotiations, regardless of our wishes. These are the boundaries within which decisions are made when all the circumstances have been examined.
Now you need to think about how to implement the chosen solution. Who does what and by when? What are the main directions of movement? How does one stage of negotiations lead to another?
Anyone who has thought about the following questions is well prepared:
how different the negotiating partner’s goal is from your own;
how different the paths your partner might choose are from yours;
what parameters of one’s own plan (deadlines, means, people) can the partner base on;
how wide is his time horizon, does the partner have information that you do not have, or vice versa;
what his ideas about the organizational support for his solution may be.
So, only when a potential client sees the benefits that can be provided to him and meets his “selfish” aspirations, can we say that you have achieved success by acquiring a new partner.
Following the tactics of “game” negotiations, they offer the reader the following plan for preparing for negotiations:
"Know Thyself". This somewhat philosophical idea means the following: “You will never get what you need if you yourself don’t know what you want and you don’t stand a chance if your opponent understands you better than you do.”
"Know your opponent." Scientists have noted that the personal style of each person is reflected in everything he does, including negotiations. Before meeting with your opponent, the authors recommend that you familiarize yourself with him in as much detail as possible. inner world and the external environment. By delving into the psychology of your opponent's existence, you will gain a significant advantage in negotiations.
"Develop a calm attitude towards the outcome of the negotiations. Remember: it's just a game." Here I will quote the authors: "Any negotiation is a game. To play effectively, you need to enjoy this game and feel the excitement of the hunt. Excessive excitement... develops into nervousness, and you... will stumble out of the blue" Koren L., Goodman P. "The Art of Bargaining or All About Negotiations". FAB Publishing House. Minsk, 1995.-P. 41 ..
"Be willing to take risks." Negotiation is a process. There is always a certain gap between the action and the result, which is called the Risk Zone. The first step taken on the one hand does not leave the opponent time to respond in kind. Sometimes the wait is long and makes you nervous. That is why negotiators are trying to reduce the Risk Zone as much as possible. Some authors, on the contrary, suggest stretching the Risk Zone as much as possible, as much as you can control yourself. There is some adventurism in this. The necessity and extent of risk should not be determined by self-control.
"Improve your ability to pretend and bluff: imagine yourself on stage". It is sometimes necessary to veil your true attitude, but the art of disguise is very complex, and the consequences of a possible “exposure” can be very sad. It is impossible to predict how the opponent will react if the insincerity is revealed.
"The more important the negotiations, the more carefully you should prepare"Of course, you cannot proceed blindly, having, for example, information only on those few facts that will be discussed at the negotiations. If necessary, it will be more practical to postpone the meeting and spend more time studying the issue to be worked on.
“Start negotiations before the negotiations begin, when the opponent is calm and carefree.” You should establish relationships with your partner ahead of time and get rid of formality. Later, at the negotiating table, where the interlocutor will have to remain respectable, it will be more difficult to establish friendly relations.
"Remember: your opponent will also look for your weak points." Discretion in negotiations is equally important. It is necessary to take protective measures: what can be hidden; prepare a suitable explanation for what cannot be hidden; hire a consultant on issues in which you are not competent enough yourself; Accustom yourself to pause: think first, and only then speak.
"Calculate the maximum that can potentially be achieved in a given negotiation, but stay within reason". What the best outcome of the negotiations could be, if events unfolded according to plan, determines the level of initial demands. One unconditional rule should not be forgotten - you will never receive more than you asked for yourself.
"Analyze possible solutions in case negotiations fail. Calculate the minimum acceptable option." Having backup options gives you a feeling of confidence. By comparing the prospects and attractiveness of various options, you can determine the minimum level of your requirements in the upcoming negotiations.
“Plan your actions carefully in advance, but be prepared to respond to change and new circumstances.” Any plan is not a dogma and thoughtlessly following it can turn into a disaster. Negotiations are often spontaneous and chaotic, since calculated alternatives do not make it possible to fully predict the opponent’s reaction. Planning is necessary, but ultimately negotiations are based not only on the plan, but also on the partners’ ability to navigate a specific situation.
"Prepare a script for the upcoming meeting and rehearse it in roles.” Staging provides an opportunity to refine your arguments and gauge your opponent's likely response before it is too late to change. “This is not only an opportunity to try out possible moves and arguments, but also training in self-control, the ability to avoid unexpected obstacles along the way.”
Negotiation tactics
Negotiation tactics are directly implemented with the help of tactics that allow you to achieve your goal. Let's try to classify them based on the fact that at each stage it is advisable to use certain techniques. But first, let's look at UNIVERSAL TACTICAL TECHNIQUES that are acceptable at any stage of negotiations.
“LEAVING” or “avoiding the fight” is used when issues are raised that are undesirable for discussion. An example of a “care” measure is a request to postpone consideration of the problem, reschedule it for another time, or ignore it. Sometimes, in a situation where negotiations have reached a dead end, it is advisable to use “withdrawal”, move on to consideration of other issues, or declare a break.
The “withdrawal” technique can play a positive role when, for example, it is necessary to coordinate an issue with other organizations or to carefully think through and carefully weigh the positive and negative aspects associated with accepting a partner’s offer.
Other tactical techniques that are close in meaning to the “escape” technique are “delaying,” “waiting,” and “salami.” These techniques are used when they want to drag out negotiations in order to clarify the situation, get more information from the partner, etc.
“WAITING” is associated with “extracting” the greatest amount of information from a partner in order to, after assessing all the conditions and available data, make one’s own decision.
“SALAMI” is a type of “waiting”. This is a slow, gradual opening of one’s own position, similar to thinly slicing salami sausage. The goal is to obtain the maximum possible information from the partner, to formulate proposals in the most favorable form for oneself, even to the point of delaying negotiations if one is not ready to solve the problem.
“EXPRESSING AGREEMENT” (or “expressing disagreement”) is a way of emphasizing commonality or, conversely, a complete difference of opinion.
A more complex tactical technique is “PACKING”. It lies in the fact that not one question or proposal is proposed for discussion, but several. This solves two problems. In the first case, attractive and unacceptable offers for the partner are bundled into one “package”. It is assumed that the partner, being interested in one or more proposals, will accept the rest. In another case, they achieve acceptance of the main proposals by making concessions on minor proposals.
Close in meaning to this technique is “EXCESSING REQUIREMENTS.” It consists of including points in the problems being discussed that can then be painlessly removed, pretending that this is a concession, and demanding similar steps on the part of the partner. Moreover, these points must contain proposals that are obviously unacceptable to the partner.
Adjacent to them is the tactical technique “PLACEMENT OF FALSE ACCENTS IN OWN POSITION.” It consists of demonstrating to the partner extreme interest in resolving some issue that is actually of secondary importance. Sometimes this is done in order to remove this issue from the agenda in order to obtain the necessary decisions on another, more important issue.
“PROMOTION OF DEMANDS AT THE LAST MINUTE” - its essence is that at the end of the negotiations, when all that remains is to sign the contract, one of the partners puts forward new demands. If the other party is very interested in the contract, they will accept these demands. But sometimes it happens that the signing of a contract is postponed or even canceled for this reason.
When trying to change the course of negotiations in your favor, you should never resort to the trick that our negotiators sometimes allow themselves: they say that someone is offering them more profitable terms transactions. In respectable business circles this is considered blackmail and tactlessness. It is generally accepted there that everyone is free to choose the most advantageous companion for themselves, but must do it with dignity, without offending others.
“GRADUALLY INCREASING THE COMPLEXITY OF THE ISSUES DISCUSSED” involves starting negotiations with the easiest issues, the solution of which has a positive psychological impact and demonstrates the possibility of reaching agreements. D. Carnegie’s formula is appropriate here: “Make your partner say “yes” to you nine times, and only then the tenth time he will no longer be able to say “no.”
At the stage of clarifying positions during negotiations, the following METHODS will be acceptable.
“DIRECT OPENING OF A POSITION” - voluntary (or as a reaction to a partner’s question) full disclosure of one’s interests and needs and justification of the importance of satisfying them as a vital necessity.
“ACCEPTING THE PARTNER’S FIRST OFFER” is used when it is quite acceptable, when there is a danger that the partner will further tighten his position, when there is every reason to believe that he will not make any concessions.
At the stage of discussing positions, you can use the following tactics.
“OBJECTION TO THE PARTNER” - pointing out his weaknesses by bringing in factual material and the internal inconsistency of statements and logical omissions (“What to do with A, B and C, which you did not mention?”).
“PREVENTIVE ARGUMENTATION” - when you ask a question, the answer to which will reveal the inconsistency of the expected counterarguments.
“STATING SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES” and “PUTTING CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES OUT OF BRACKETS”, I think, do not need clarification.
At the stage of agreeing positions It is appropriate to use the following TECHNIQUES:
“SEARCHING FOR A COMMON SOLUTION AREA” - after listening to your partner’s opinion and comparing it with yours, try to find common points.
“SURPRISE” - accept an offer that, according to your partner’s calculations, you should not accept. The goal is to cause confusion and confusion, which means taking the initiative into your own hands.
“ULTIMATUUM, OR THE LAST WORD” is used immediately: either accept our offer, or we leave the negotiations. The risk is high, but sometimes justified.
“DOUBLE INTERPRETATION” - in a document developed during the discussion, one of the parties “puts” a double meaning into the wording, which is not noticed by the partner, in order to then interpret the agreement in its own interests, supposedly without violating it.
It often happens that in the process of conducting commercial negotiations, a partner turns out to be a manipulator, that is, a person who tries to use the opponent and his personal characteristics and weaknesses to achieve his own selfish goals. To do this, he uses the following TECHNIQUES.
INTENTIONAL DECEPTION. The partner claims something that is obviously false. However, if you express doubt, he pretends to be offended and even insulted. What to do in this case?
First of all, you should separate this person from the problem you are solving together with him. If you have no reason to trust him, don't do it. But that doesn't mean you should call him a liar. Negotiations must continue, but without trust.
Therefore, when you feel that your partner is giving false facts, do not immediately try to catch him in a lie. Tell your partner that you are negotiating regardless of whether you trust or distrust him, and you are going to check all his factual statements, since this is your principled position in the negotiations. Such statements should always be made in a very correct form with appropriate apologies in this case.
DUBBIBILITY OF INTENTIONS. If the intention of the other party to fulfill the agreement is doubtful, then, for the sake of decency, having expressed confidence in its honesty and the low probability of violating the terms of the agreement, include clauses in the contract that ensure the fulfillment of obligations, and even better - specific strict sanctions in case of non-compliance with the terms of the agreement.
UNCLEAR POWERS. Just when you think a firm agreement has been reached, the other party tells you that it does not have the authority or right to make the final decision or make concessions and must now obtain the other person's approval.
In this case, the following tactics are recommended. Before you begin a contract, ask: “What exactly are the powers you have in this case?” If you receive an evasive answer, reserve the right to reconsider any point in the negotiations or demand a conversation with a person who has real rights. If the situation in question arose at the end of the negotiations, you can tell your partner: “If your management approves this project, we will consider that we have agreed. Otherwise, each of us is free to make any changes to the project.”
INTENTIONAL SELECTION OF A BAD PLACE FOR NEGOTIATIONS. If you suspect that the environment is working against you, that an inconvenient room was chosen deliberately, that you would strive to finish negotiations faster and be ready to concede at the first request, what should you do in this case?
First of all, you need to try to understand the reasons for your unpleasant feelings and discuss your proposals with the other side. Say you're uncomfortable. Offer to take a break, move to a more comfortable room, or agree to reschedule the meeting for another time.
Concluding our consideration of manipulative methods of conducting commercial negotiations, we will indicate a general tactical rule for countering them. Its essence is to promptly recognize the partner’s tactics, directly state its presence in his behavior and question the legality of such tactics, i.e. openly discuss it.
Negotiation tactics should provide the most favorable conditions for the development of an agreement and maximum reflection of its own interests in it:
Based on the analysis of business negotiations, the following can be distinguished: tactical lines:
a) the initial position is stated at the beginning of the negotiations, then, depending on their progress, changes are made to it;
b) the initial position is defended throughout the entire course of negotiations, and the readiness to compromise is manifested only at the “last hour”, i.e. at the final stage;
c) the initial position remains unchanged, and the success of negotiations is possible only if the remaining participants accept this position.
Each of these options has its pros and cons. The first two options are most often chosen, providing for the possibility of certain maneuvering and deviation from the initially stated position.
Negotiation tactics.
The use of the first group of techniques demonstrates the attitude towards the opponent as an opponent:
1) Excessive demands. Opponents begin negotiations by putting forward significantly exaggerated demands, which they do not expect to be met. Opponents then retreat to more realistic demands through a series of apparent concessions. However, at the same time they achieve real concessions from the opposite side. If the initial demand is excessively high, then it will most likely be regarded as unlawful and will not cause reciprocal concessions.
2) Placing false accents in one’s own position. The idea is to demonstrate extreme interest in resolving some minor issue, and then remove the requirements for this item. This kind of action looks like a concession, which causes a reciprocal concession from the opponent.
3) Waiting. Used to force the opponent to express his opinion first, and then, depending on the information received, formulate his own
point of view.
4) "Salami". Information is provided to the opponent in very small portions. This trick is used to obtain as much information as possible from the opponent or to delay negotiations.
5) "Stick" arguments are used in cases where one of the negotiators has difficulty with counterargumentation or wants to psychologically suppress the opponent. The essence of this technique is that, as an argument, they appeal to higher values and interests, starting with statements like: “Do you understand what you are trying to do?!”
6) "Intentional deception." It is used either to achieve or to avoid any consequences and represents: distortion of information; message
knowingly false information; lack of authority to make decisions on certain issues; lack of intention to fulfill the terms of the agreement.
7) Putting forward increasing demands. If one of the negotiators agrees with the proposals being made, the other participant may resort to putting forward more and more new demands.
8) Making demands at the last minute. This technique is used at the end of negotiations, when all that remains is to conclude an agreement. In this situation, one of the participants puts forward new demands, hoping that his opponent will make concessions in order to maintain what has been achieved.
9) Double interpretation. When developing the final document, one of the parties “puts” into it wording with double meaning. Subsequently, such a trick allows you to interpret the agreement in your own interests.
10) Putting pressure on your opponent. It is used to obtain concessions from him and force him to agree to the proposed solution. This technique can be implemented by: indicating the possibility of terminating negotiations; show of force; presentation of an ultimatum; warning of consequences unpleasant for the opponent.
The second group of techniques is focused on a partnership approach:
1) Gradual increase in the complexity of the issues discussed. The discussion begins with those issues that cause the least disagreement, and then the negotiators move on to more complex issues. Using this technique allows you to avoid active opposition from the parties from the very beginning of negotiations and create a favorable atmosphere.
2) Dividing the problem into individual components. The problem identifies individual aspects on which mutual agreement is gradually being achieved.
3) Blanketing controversial issues. Used if difficulties arise in reaching agreement on the entire range of problems. Controversial issues are not considered, which allows partial agreements to be reached.
4) “One cuts, the other chooses.” The technique is based on the principle of fairness of division: one is given the right to divide (disputed property, powers, territory, functions, etc.), and the other is given the right to choose one of two parts. The meaning of this technique is as follows: the first, fearing to receive a smaller share, will strive to divide as accurately as possible.
5) Emphasizing commonality. The aspects that unite the opponents are indicated: 1) interest in a positive result of the negotiations; 2) interdependence of opponents; 3) the desire to avoid material and moral losses; 4) the presence of a long-term relationship between the parties.
It is possible to highlight third group of techniques, which are similar in their manifestation, but have different meanings depending on the strategy within which they are used:
1) Getting ahead of objections. This technique comes down to the fact that the negotiator who begins the discussion points out his weaknesses without waiting for his opponent to do so. The use of this technique within the framework of bargaining to a certain extent cuts the ground from under the opponent’s feet and makes it necessary to adjust the arguments “on the fly.” When striving to negotiate on the basis of mutual consideration of interests, this technique signals a desire to avoid acute confrontation and recognition of a certain legitimacy of the opponent’s claims.
2) Economy of Arguments lies in the fact that all available arguments are not expressed immediately, but gradually. If negotiators are guided by positional bargaining, then this technique allows them to “hold back” some of the arguments in order to use them in a difficult situation. When negotiating on the basis of mutual consideration
interests there is another version of this technique. Economy of arguments makes it easier to perceive information and avoids ignoring one or another argument.
opponent.
3) Return to the discussion. The technique boils down to the fact that issues that have already been discussed are put back on the agenda. In a bargaining situation, this technique is used to delay the negotiation process. Negotiators who are guided by a partnership approach use this technique if for some of them the issue really remains unclear.
4) Bagging consists in the fact that several issues are linked and offered for consideration together (in the form of a package). The “package” within the framework of the bargaining includes both attractive and unacceptable offers for the opponent. This “package deal” is called a “load sale.” The party offering the “package” assumes that the opponent, who is interested in several proposals,
will accept the rest. Within the framework of negotiations based on mutual consideration of interests, this technique has a different meaning. Here the “package” is focused on linking interests with possible gains for all participants.
5) Block tactics used in multilateral negotiations and consists of coordinating one’s actions with other participants acting as a single bloc. If opponents are guided by a partnership approach, then this technique allows you to first find a solution for a group of participants and thereby facilitate the search for the final solution.
In positional bargaining, blocking tactics are used to combine efforts that block the realization of the interests of the opposite party.
6) “Withdrawal” (avoidance tactics) can be expressed in transferring the discussion to another topic or another issue, as well as in a request to postpone consideration of the problem. Within the framework of positional bargaining, it is used with the aim of: 1) not giving the opponent accurate information; 2) do not enter into a discussion if, for example, the position on this issue poorly designed; 3) reject indirectly an undesirable offer; 4) delay negotiations. Negotiators based on mutual consideration of interests use “withdrawal” in cases where it is necessary to consider a proposal or agree on an issue with other persons.
The characteristics of tactical techniques used at various stages of negotiations allow us to draw attention to an important aspect that distinguishes some techniques from others. This criterion is the goal to achieve which one or another technique is used. And these goals are either the desire to facilitate the achievement of a mutually beneficial result, or the desire for a one-sided gain.
If opponents are focused on obtaining unilateral advantages, then their actions are often hidden. The methods that are used are called differently: unacceptable, speculative, impermissible. But the term “manipulative” most accurately reflects their essence.
Manipulation - this is the view psychological impact aimed at hidden encouragement of another to perform certain actions. In order to neutralize manipulative influence, it is first of all necessary to know the techniques of such influence and their timely detection.
Concluding our discussion of negotiations, it should be noted that knowledge about negotiations alone is not a sufficient basis for success. An equally important role is played by the formation and development of negotiation skills. And the ability to negotiate is acquired only by putting existing knowledge into practice.
From the editor: This article is an excerpt from the book "Conducting International Negotiations." As it is written in the annotation, this is a textbook. That is, various future diplomats and politicians study from it.
It is no secret to us that among role-players there is a layer of people who play ministers, advisers and ambassadors. This text is intended both for them and for those who have to communicate with him in the game.
It will also be useful for masters who conduct negotiations at the highest, so to speak, level with masters of parallel games and especially capricious players.
And also - it’s just interestingly written. We highly recommend it!
Tactics are a way to achieve a strategy (goal). Tactics depend on strategy and are determined by it. The tactical techniques used by the negotiating parties are quite well described in the literature devoted to the study of the negotiation process, both memoirs and scientific (F.C. Ikle, R. Fisher and U. Ury, Y. Nergesh, M. Lebedeva, L. Bellanger , V. Israelyan, J.-C. Altman, etc.), they are also studied by representatives of other sciences, primarily logic, rhetoric, and psychology.
It is quite natural that the tactical techniques of the bargaining strategy are described and analyzed much better. They are extremely varied and have different options.
The main tactics of the bargaining strategy are the following.
Pressure tactics.
Varieties of application of this tactical technique can be:
- threats;
- false threats (bluff);
- ultimatum (“take a pen and write”, “either agree or we’ll leave”).
The tactic of “inflating initial requirements.”
Its meaning is that negotiators ask for more than they actually hope to receive. Its essence is well illustrated by the saying: “Ask for a camel, they will give you a ram.”
Disqualification tactics.
Its essence lies in the fact that instead of justifying the truth or falsity of the argument put forward by a party, the other participant tries to assess the merits or demerits of the negotiating partner (getting personal). Varieties of application of this tactical technique can be:
- personal attacks (“do you look bad, did you sleep well?”, “I heard your wife left you?”);
- slander;
- deliberate deception: false facts, false powers, the use of the so-called deceptive consensus (“we are all one big family”, “friendship above all”, etc. expressions);
- blackmail;
- ridicule;
- gossip;
- scandal.
The tactic of “placing false accents in one’s own position.”
The essence of this tactic is to demonstrate to your negotiating partner your extreme interest in resolving an issue that is of secondary importance to you. In the course of further negotiations, demands on this issue are lifted, but the withdrawal of demands is presented as a concession, in exchange for which a concession on another issue is demanded.
Last-minute demands tactics.
The essence of this technique is as follows. At a time when negotiations are close to completion and agreements remain to be signed, new demands are put forward.
Tactics of “growing demands”.
Its essence is clear from the name - increasing demands with each subsequent concession. Let us refer to the example given by M. Lebedeva.
The tactic of increasing demands was used by the Prime Minister of Malta in negotiations with Great Britain in 1971 regarding the establishment of air and naval bases on Maltese territory. When the negotiations seemed to be coming to an end and the agreement remained to be signed, the Maltese government made a demand for payment of 10 million pounds sterling. After the British agreed to fulfill this condition and offered to sign the treaty, the Prime Minister of Malta put forward a new demand - to ensure employment for Maltese dockers and workers at English bases for the entire duration of the treaty.
“Package” tactics (packaging, linking).
The essence is that several issues on the agenda are linked and offered for consideration in the form of a “package” (“load sale”). As a result, it is proposed to discuss not individual proposals, but their complex. The party offering the "package" expects that the other party, being interested in several offers from the "package", will accept the rest. In case of refusal, it is possible to carry out a propaganda function by making accusations about the reluctance of the negotiating partner to conduct a constructive dialogue.
An example of the application of this tactical technique is the position of the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during the negotiations in 1990 on the issue of the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from occupied Kuwait. Saddam Hussein said that Iraq is ready to do this, but only in response to the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank of the Jordan River and the Gaza Strip, as well as Syrian troops from the Lebanese Bekaa Valley.
Salami tactics.
This tactical technique received its name by analogy with a well-known type of sausage, which is usually cut into very thin layers. The essence of using this technique is to provide the negotiating partner with information in very small portions. The same applies to concessions – in very small steps. The purpose of using this tactic is to hope that your partner will give in first.
Tactics of "double interpretation".
The essence is that the agreement following the negotiations deliberately contains a double meaning that was not noticed by the partner. In this case, the agreement does not seem to be violated, but it is beneficial to only one side. An example of the use of such tactics is given by V. Israelyan.
In November 1967, a UN Security Council resolution was adopted on a peaceful settlement of the Middle East conflict. It contained the phrase about the need for “the return of the occupied territories.” Since the word “all” territories was not included in this phrase, Israel stated that the resolution did not require its withdrawal from all occupied territories. The Arab countries, citing the same resolution, insisted on the withdrawal of Israeli troops from all occupied territories.
“Escape” tactics (waiting, delaying, silence).
The purpose of using this tactic is to force the partner to be the first to give information, to accept neither arguments nor alternatives of the other side, to postpone one’s own arguments and decisions until a later date. Varieties of its application can be:
- reference to a third party as a justification for refusing to move forward;
- ignoring questions and suggestions;
- the answer is not relevant to the issues discussed;
- withdrawal from negotiations.
Talleyrand's tactics.
This tactical technique got its name from the famous French diplomat. Its essence is the following - first find the negotiation weapons (arguments, principles) and learn the tactics of their use (through rehearsals); divide allies by exploiting their discord and fears; defeat opposing allies by emphasizing common interests.
The "dear friend" tactic.
The essence is to accurately formulate your wish; ask the opponent not to answer immediately.
Riddle tactics.
The essence is to send contradictory messages to the other side (we are ready to listen... we cannot agree for you to return to this issue).
Blame tactics.
The essence is to constantly attack the enemy, demand an explanation from his very first “mistake”; demonstrate to him, dramatizing, the full extent of the damage caused and at the same time remind him of the importance of the mission in which all those gathered are called to participate.
In the process of negotiations, arguments are used that in logic are usually called unacceptable. The most commonly used include:
- Arguments to authority.
Therefore, A is true.
- Arguments to the masses.
Everyone knows that A,
therefore A is true.
A negotiator should be wary of statements such as: “as an intelligent person, you will not deny...”, “everyone knows that...”, “an uneducated person will not understand, but you...”, “you, of course, know that... “,” “science has long established that...”, “a well-known fact...”, etc.
Applying a principled strategy or a partnership approach to negotiations, as already noted, is more effective. The main tactics of this strategy include the following.
The tactic of “gradually increasing the complexity of the issues being discussed.”
Its application involves going from simple to complex, from issues that cause the least disagreement to more complex ones. TO positive aspects The use of such tactics can be attributed to the fact that as issues are discussed, trust grows and a favorable psychological background is created.
The tactic of “putting controversial issues out of brackets.”
Its essence is clear from the name. Negotiations are ongoing, and an agreement is concluded only on that part of the problems on which there is no disagreement; controversial issues are not considered (postponed).
Pie tactics.
The use of this tactic is effective when negotiating the division of something (for example, territory). Its essence lies in the fact that one side proposes the principle of division and carries out the division, and the other chooses (one divides the “pie”, and the other chooses a piece for itself). The technique assumes that one side, fearing that it will receive a smaller “piece,” will strive to divide as accurately as possible.
Block tactics.
It can and is used, as a rule, during multilateral negotiations. The essence of its application is that negotiating partners with common interests act as a single bloc. First, actions within a block are coordinated, then between blocks.
Test balloon tactics.
This tactic is that proposals in negotiations are formulated not in the form of a specific proposal, but in the form of an idea (“what if we try to do this”).
In negotiation practice, these and other tactics can be and are used both in the implementation of a bargaining strategy and a principled strategy, that is, they can have a dual purpose. Dual-use tactics include “packing”, “blocking”, “escape”, and “trial ball” tactics.
The described tactics have both advantages and disadvantages.
For example, using pressure and threats can have an effect. But if they have no real basis, they lose their force and, most likely, cannot be applied again. The agreements themselves, based on threats, are forced and therefore fragile and short-lived.
The tactic of "increasing initial demands" can lead to the fact that the other party may simply walk away from the negotiations. The use of salami and escape tactics can lead to significant delays in negotiations.
Tactical techniques used in the negotiation process are constantly being improved, and new types appear. Ultimately, their combination depends on the experience and skill of the negotiators, the goals and objectives of the negotiations.
S. G. Sheretov
Conducting international negotiations, training manual, Almaty, “Daneker”, 2004
Partner disorientation. This tactic is proactive and goal-oriented. It is planned in advance and is characterized by such techniques as:
- criticism of the partner’s constructive provisions (“And at Mstar the price for a large order is lower than yours”);
- using unexpected information (“I heard your regular suppliers went bankrupt.”);
- deception, bluff (“We were lucky: we made a deal with a reputable company!”, “I was not allowed to offer discounts until you agree to a price above 50,000 USD.”);
- threats (“We will drive you back to stone Bek with bombs!”, “We will sue you!”, “We will organize a general strike”), etc.
The main purpose of disorientation is to force your partner to act in the direction of your own interests.
Ultimatum. This tactic is one of the toughest and is characterized by presenting an ultimatum at the very beginning of negotiations.
An ultimatum is a demand made by one of the negotiating parties to the other in a categorical form, indicating specific deadlines for the fulfillment of these demands and the threat of enforcement action in case of refusal (“Our offer is valid only until Friday”).
The main technique of an ultimatum is a threat. In addition, in the process of presenting an ultimatum, the following can be used: blackmail, demonstration of force, bluff and other means of manipulation. Often in ultimate tactics special techniques are used: “reception of alternatives” and “reception of the shutter”.
Accepting alternatives. Its essence is that the enemy is offered a choice of two or more unattractive options for solving a problem that satisfy your own interests. This technique is psychologically designed for the opportunities presented to the opponent to “save face,” although these opportunities are imaginary.
Shutter reception differs in that the ultimatum influence on the enemy is exerted through one’s own weakening of control over the situation. In this case, the initiator of the ultimatum simulates the creation of a hopeless situation for himself, tying it to severe consequences if the other party fails to comply with the demands. This technique is widely used by terrorists.
When analyzing ultimate tactics, it is important to take into account the conditions of its application. Professionally issuing an ultimatum presupposes an extremely disadvantageous position for the opponent in the negotiations. Therefore, to achieve such a situation, waiting techniques are used: delaying the start of negotiations, deliberately being late or not arriving at an appointed meeting, avoiding contact with an opponent, etc.
In addition, you should know that an ultimatum can be put forward not only at the beginning of negotiations in order to carry them in the desired direction, but also during the negotiations. Squeezing out concessions. This tactic differs from an ultimatum in that the demands are not presented to the opponent immediately, but in stages. Moreover, each of the requirements presented is presented as exhaustive. Squeezing out concessions is achieved using techniques of positional and psychological pressure.
Reception " closed door» comes down to demonstrating refusal to enter into negotiations. Moreover, such a demonstration is applicable provided that the enemy is interested in negotiations. In this case, he is ready to make concessions in order to attract the opposite side to the negotiations.
Reception "pass mode" involves putting forward a preliminary concession as a condition for the start of negotiations or for their further continuation. The concession here plays the role of a pass.
Reception of "sighting" is used when an agreement on some issue is almost reached, but it does not fully suit the initiator of squeezing out concessions. Then, in order to obtain a new concession, he declares a limitation of his powers to make a decision in the form in which it is prepared, and that this issue requires additional coordination with higher authorities. This technique calculated on the fact that the enemy cannot wait and is ready to make new concessions, as long as an agreement is concluded now.
Reception of “external danger” used as a demonstration of willingness to accept an opponent's proposal, but at the same time a statement is made that its implementation is jeopardized by interference external forces. At the same time, conditions are specified that would exclude the intervention of external forces or would allow it to be neutralized. Such conditions are nothing more than a form of squeezed-out concession.
Reception of “reading in hearts” is a trick, the essence of which is as follows. A hidden meaning is attributed to the opponent’s words and the “real motives” that are hidden behind the spoken words are “exposed.” Thus, you can attribute anything to your opponent and force him to justify what he did not do. As a rule, it can be very difficult or even impossible to refute the accusation, since the emphasis is on the principle “another soul is darkness.”
The “last demand” technique is used when lengthy negotiations have reached their final stage. Tired of grueling, sometimes unpleasant, difficult negotiations and anticipating their finale, the opponent is presented with another demand. And he, as a rule, agrees with him.