Masterstroke E-Book

Francisco Guirado Bernabeu

• Herausgeber: Editora Dialética
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 219

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023

Beschreibung

A practical guide that will deeply change the way you negotiate and make decisions in a negotiation! Who has never felt vulnerable after a negotiation after realizing that they did not recognize a tactic their counterpart used? Just like in a game of chess, negotiation tactics are intentional practices adopted during negotiations in order to produce the desired and predetermined effects on the counterpart you are negotiating with. For this reason, it is vital to know them, both to improve your understanding of the scenario in which you are negotiating and to know how and when to use them in order to maximize the desired results. This book compiles the 48 most powerful negotiation tactics, constituting a practical guide that presents not only the description of each tactic but also the explanation of how and why they work, their desired effects, examples of applications, and, mainly, how to neutralize them when they are used against you. Once you have finished reading, you will certainly be better prepared to understand the negotiations in which you will participate, as well as have at your disposal a real guide to facilitate your decision on how to act during them. In short: this book is a must-have, it is a practical guide to always have on your side to be ready and willing to negotiate.

Leseprobe

FOREWORD

In 2021, a group of experts and negotiation enthusiasts decided to meet with the aim of mapping several existing negotiation tactics. The group is composed of seven negotiation professors, among them a prosecutor, a lawyer, four businessmen, and a project manager. The group met weekly to discuss and study tactics. It was a great learning experience for all of us.

Along the way, we began to see negotiation from a different point of view. The tactics became more easily recognized in any negotiation we faced. As we spent a lot of time studying each of those tactics, we quickly started to recognize not only their use but also the best ways to neutralize them.

After mapping 40 tactics, we realized that we could publish a book to share this knowledge with other people. Our initial investigation showed us that there was nothing on the market that systematically addressed the different tactics applicable to negotiations. In any language.

So, we decided to publish our work. We wrote some introductory chapters to define the terminology we would use, contextualize the use of tactics and the main elements we choose to characterize them, and explain the reasons why they were effective, such as sources of the power of influence, mental triggers, and cognitive biases.

We invested a lot of time in discussing the best way to categorize tactics since there was no consensus among the main authors. In all the categories studied, it was exceedingly difficult to place a tactic under a single category. This led us to create a system that could be useful in finding the appropriate tactic to be used according to the desired effect on the other party.

The title of the book was the final challenge. We wanted something that could reflect our concern with the ethics of negotiation, combined with the need to learn the scenario of the game, the use of tactical-strategic thinking, and that flash of creativity that only the great scholars of a certain subject are capable of producing. After lengthy discussions, we reached the consensus that it should be called: Masterstroke - the 48 most powerful negotiation tactics.

Masterstroke is an expression that refers to chess, an extremely tactical game to be played according to clear rules and scenarios, in which a masterstroke will change the course of a match. We consider this is how tactics are.

They must be employed in the context of a broader strategy, accompanied by appropriate techniques, always keeping in mind the desired goal. They must also be placed in an ethical context and aim at the common good: the fulfillment of all interests involved. If the tactics are used outside this context, we provide the reader with a section on how to neutralize each one of them. This information will provide the negotiator with the knowledge not only to use the tactics but also to avoid them, just like the chess grandmasters do.

The work is far from over. Our working group is still holding regular meetings aiming to map out new tactics, improve the existing ones, and structure a practical course that covers all the knowledge we have acquired so far. Anyway, if you want to follow us, click on this link https://clubedenegociadores.com. Come and join this community of professionals who are truly passionate about everything that involves negotiation

SUMÁRIO

Capa

Folha de Rosto

Créditos

INTRODUCING THE TACTICS

THE POWER OF INFLUENCE

NEUTRALIZING TACTICS

TYPES OF NEGOTIATION TACTICS

COMPENDIUM OF TACTICS

NEXT MOVES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INDEX OF TACTICS

Landmarks

cover

titlepage

copyright-page

Table of Contents

bibliography

INTRODUCING THE TACTICS

The study of tactics is important to learn the correct way to use them whenever necessary and convenient; likewise, it is important to know how to recognize the tactics in case they are used by the counterparty. After all, being ethical does not mean being naive. The negotiator must know all the tactics and tricks to identify the counterpart’s desired results and be able to neutralize them!

Generally speaking, tactics can be understood as isolated actions or as a set of procedures adopted during a negotiation process, in a planned and deliberate manner, with the purpose of generating impact on the counterparty and, thus, producing specific previously determined outcomes. Tactics are one-off events that are part of an overall negotiation strategy.

Negotiation tactics have been systematically studied in the Clube de Negociadores. The aim is to produce a large repository that includes indications for use, desired effects, practical examples, and ways to neutralize the opponent’s tactics. As a result of our discussions, we have found that the correct expression to use is “Tactics FOR negotiation” because some tactics come from other contexts, as is the case of the “god cop and bad cop” tactic — taken from police interviews — but are perfectly well-suited for use during any negotiation. Despite this finding, we will use the term Negotiation Tactic throughout this work so that the search engine optimization tools may better index and rank this term on the Internet.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TACTICS AND STRATEGY

The first differentiation that needs to be emphasized is between tactics and strategy.

The word tactics, a plural noun, originated in Ancient Greece, meaning initially “the art of maneuvering troops” (CLAUSEWITZ, 1996), and is a component of a strategy aiming to fulfill the desired goal.

The first expert on the subject was Clausewitz, in his work entitled “On War.” In his extensive work, the author first defined the concept of engagement or battle as an individual act, complete in itself. Tactics were defined as the art of using armed forces in engagements. In other words, tactics mean how we organize each of the battles. Clausewitz also defined strategy as a concept, meaning the art of using engagements to fulfill the objectives of war (CLAUSEWITZ, 1996).

Let’s look at it in a different way. The landing in Normandy, for example, when the Allies disembarked in France. It was a battle in the context of World War II (WWII). (Figure 01).

Figure 01 –Normandy landing

Deciding how to move troops from the air, using paratroopers and aircraft, or from the sea, using the Marines, during the landing would be an example of tactics.

The strategy used by the allies in WWII, on the other hand, was broader, involving several battles, of which the Battle of the Normandy Landing was only one part. (Figure 02).

Figure 02 – Battles of WWII

If we draw a parallel with the negotiation context, we can say that:

Negotiation Strategy is the art of preparing and combining events and resources in time and space, aiming to fulfill specific purposes and interests.

While:

Negotiation Tactics is the art of intentionally using a set of techniques during a negotiation meeting, which usually aims to gain a unilateral advantage and that can present a risk when used.

We understand that:

A Negotiation Meeting is defined as any and all form of interaction with the other party during a negotiation.

Let’s compare them in a didactic way:

Table 01– The difference between strategy and tactics.

STRATEGY What will be done

TACTIC How will be done

1. It is global. Involves the entire

negotiation process.

2. Aims to fulfill the overall objective

of the negotiation.

3. A strategy can be formed by a

number of tactics.

4. Usually, the overall strategy remains hidden and underlying and is

manifested through a number of tactics.

5. It is elaborated in a planned, deliberate, and intentional way.

6. Must consider and be compatible with the overall negotiation environment.

1. It is right to the point and specific, aiming to achieve one by one the results previously determined.

2. Aims to reach specific objectives, which will facilitate the fulfillment of the overall objective.

3. Tactics is the operational side of strategy that makes it possible to reach it completely.

4. Tactics are used individually during the negotiation, generating specific results that, put together, will lead to greater effectiveness of the strategy.

5. It is elaborated in a planned, deliberate, and intentional way.

6. It must be compatible with the strategy chosen because it is part of it.

Based on the table above, we have seen that the overall strategy of a negotiation can be carried out by using different tactics in such a way that the planning and choice of tactics must consider the strategy and be consistent with it. It is not recommended to choose and adopt tactics in a vacuum, in a random and disconnected way.

As an example, the use of the tactic of threat in a predominantly collaborative negotiation environment, in which a win-win result is expected. Its use may jeopardize the entire negotiation context and negatively impact the relationship between the parties, generating distrust and a lack of credibility.

Besides, it is relevant to warn that the tactics used must have a connection or, at least, that they are not mutually incompatible so that the effect of a specific tactic does not cancel out another tactic—or even undermine the overall objective.

The tactics of bluff and transparency, for example, can achieve their desired effects very quickly and effectively when used by themselves. However, when used together, they can be incompatible because their desired effects are opposite, which end up canceling each other out.

Figure 03 – Relationship between strategy, tactics, environment, and objectives.

Figure 03 above points out the relationship between these three variables, showing how important it is that the tactics adopted are inserted within the overall negotiation strategy and that this, in turn, considers the prevailing negotiation environment.

In conclusion, when we present the options to be used as negotiation tactics, keep in mind that they should not be chosen in an isolated and disconnected manner. Rather, they should be part of a general negotiation plan, which takes into account an actual assessment of risks and benefits, and that, mainly, is compatible with the strategy and environment adopted in a negotiation.

THE NEGOTIATION ENVIRONMENT

The negotiation environment has a great influence on the tactics and strategies adopted. The environment is the social atmosphere established among the negotiators. It is related to a greater or lesser predisposition for cooperation and trust among the parties, with a direct influence on the openness to exchange information, the pursuit of meeting interests, and good faith among those involved. The environment can be predominantly collaborative or competitive.

In a predominantly collaborative environment, the parties are usually more open to exchanging information, attempting to meet the interests of all those involved, acting in good faith, and trying to build trust among each other.

On the other hand, in a predominantly competitive environment, people usually hide information, use bluffs, play hardball, try to discredit the other party’s arguments, and use a number of resources to try to gain an advantage in the negotiation.

We use the term “predominant” because it is very common to find both collaborative and competitive postures in the same negotiation. We can, for example, negotiate a contract in a collaborative environment; however, when approaching the value of a certain item, we act in a competitive manner, with high opening bids and safeguarding our threshold value.

Additionally, a complex negotiation that involves many parties may lead to the design of a strategy that considers a number of predominant environments. It may be that we want a competitive environment with some people and a collaborative environment with others. In this context, the tactics to be used must be aligned with the established strategy.

Negotiation environments have a great influence on tactics, with a greater tendency to use tactics in a predominantly competitive environment.

THE NEGOTIATION OBJECTIVES

Suppose you want to open a company. That is the higher goal you propose to achieve, your objective. You will pursue this goal under a number of specific circumstances. You will want, for example, to preserve your relationships throughout the opening process, to start your business with enough working capital for a year’s operation, to start with a number of customers that will ensure that you can at least pay your operating costs, and so on. These are your interests.

Regardless of whether or not you manage to achieve your interests, the higher goal of opening the company – the inspiring force of your actions – should always be in your mind. If the negotiation with a certain social actor does not allow either interest to be met, for whatever reason, one should not get discouraged but change the strategy, always keeping the focus on your higher goal.

In this context, however, the strategy must be set to define how the specific objective (or goal) will be fulfilled.

An objective must be positive and action-oriented, indicating the road to be taken so that everyone can see where they want to arrive. A negative objective points nowhere, and neither motivates nor mobilizes.

But what happens if you don’t have a clear objective? Figure something out, even if it’s not that great. “If you don’t work towards your objective, you will work for other people to achieve their goals” (CAMP, 2004). You can even contribute to helping someone else achieve their goals, but if this contribution does not happen consciously, you are investing your time poorly, or worse, maybe you are being used.

We must set the objective of a negotiation clearly, concisely, and objectively in a way that straightforwardly discloses what is desired.

Consider the point of view of a government looking to make a purchase, for example. The objective is inserted in the object of the invitation to bid and is disclosed by means of a notice, newspaper advertisement, or a request for proposal. This disclosure makes potential suppliers adjust their expectations, and then it is time to negotiate the conditions under which the objective will be achieved. Here are a few examples:

Supply of twenty-two-ton fire trucks, including a ten-year logistic support contract, according to the requirements presented in Annex Y.

Development, certification, production, supply, and installation of forty air traffic control radars, as specified in Annex W.

It is also possible to set the negotiation objective as if it were a problem to be solved, such as in a crisis situation or when an unexpected event arises that needs to be resolved.

What are the safety weaknesses of Condominio das Andorinhas?

How to increase the company’s production line without increasing its fixed costs?

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TACTIC AND TECHNIQUE

Another relevant differentiation is between tactic and technique.

The word “technique” originated in Greece and was translated as “the art or the way to perform an action or a set of actions.” According to Ortega y Gasset (1991), a technique is “the procedure or a set of procedures that look forward to reaching a specific result, whether in the field of science, technology, arts, or any other activity.”

Should we accept these authors’ conceptualization, we can say that:

A Negotiation Technique is a procedure or set of intentional procedures that aim to make it easier to reach a specific result.

Negotiation techniques can be characterized as best practices, tactics, or tricks, depending on how they are applied and also on the intention of the negotiator.

If your intention is to deceive the other party into making a decision that is harmful to their interests, it will be considered a trick. This happens when you use the tactic of the objective lie, such as, for example, hiding with plaster the problem in a car’s bodywork, selling a product knowing that it is defective, or selling a product online based on a picture that does not correspond to reality.

There are, however, some practices that may be acceptable in certain circumstances, but not in others. Take the case where a negotiator receives an opening offer but refrains from making a counteroffer, simply complaining that it is out of his budget. The set of techniques and skills involved in implementing this practice can be called the absence of counter-proposals tactic. In some circumstances, this behavior can be really effective and lead the other party to lower its initial offer considerably, but in other circumstances, this could lead to a deadlock. We call these tactics questionable because, depending on the circumstances and context, they can be seen as either ethical or unethical.

Moreover, we have the conscious use of techniques, considered as best practice, which are those that neutralize certain tactics or unconscious behaviors of the other party, leading the negotiation to an acceptable result for those involved. A negotiator, when faced with someone who does not make up his mind or who frequently postpones his moves, for example, could use the tactic of ultimatum or time compression to get the other party to make a decision.

Therefore, we can define best practice as:

The art of intentionally applying a set of techniques, with ample rewards and low risk, aimed at conducting the negotiation process in a way that satisfies all or most of the interests involved.

Figure 04 – Techniques: tactics, tricks, and best practice.

Let’s look at an example, illustrated by Figure 04. Consider the techniques of asking questions or questioning skills. Once properly used (number 1, Figure 04), these techniques could help to disclose the other party’s interests, allowing the negotiator to draw up proposals that benefit all the persons involved. This technique will be considered as best practice.

But the techniques of asking questions can also be used selfishly and opportunistically in negotiation tactics, such as bluffing (2), to gather the information that only serves the interests of those who apply this tactic. In extreme cases, they could also be used as unethical tricks (3), for example, in the tactics of manipulation, blaming, or victimization, to gather confidential information from the other party, manipulating them.

In addition, we must consider that negotiating techniques can also be used inefficiently in a questionable manner. Some examples are posing obvious questions to someone or chaining questions together up to the point of annoying the other party. These behaviors can neither be understood as tactics nor best practices (5).

Therefore, what we see is that all tactics use negotiating techniques and that a tactic can be both a trick and a best practice.

When is tactic considered good practice (number 4, Figure 04)? When it is used to neutralize another tactic applied against the negotiator. The best example is the tactic of ultimatum, established to press the other party to reach a particular decision. If a negotiator uses the tactic of delaying, making the other party waste time, the ultimatum will be a counter tactic applied as best practice, reversing the undesired effects of delaying.

FEATURING THE NEGOTIATION TACTICS

To facilitate the differentiation between trick, tactic, and best practice, we have prepared the following table.

Table 02 – Difference between trick, tactic, and best practice.

Negotiation

Trick

Negotiation Tactic

Best Practice

Aims to gain unilateral advantage.

Usually aims to gain unilateral advantage.

Aims to better conduct the process.

Seeks the Power of Influence for their own benefit.

Usually seeks the Power of Influence for their own benefit.

Seeks the Power of Influence to allow the interests involved to be considered.

It is risky to use.

Usually, it is risky to use.

There is little to no risk when used.

To have the possibility of being effective, it cannot be identified by the counterparty.

Usually more effective when not identified by the counterparty.

Effective even when recognized.

Used in a predominantly competitive negotiating environment.

Usually used in a predominantly competitive negotiating environment.

Used in any negotiating environment.

Uses manipulation to achieve its goals.

Sometimes uses manipulation to achieve its objectives.

Does not use manipulation to achieve its objectives.

The objective is neither explained nor shared with the other party.

Usually, the objective is neither explained nor shared with the other party.

The objective can be explained or shared with the other party.

The means justify

the ends.

The means can justify

the ends.

The means do not justify the ends.

Since negotiation tactics can vary from tricks to best practices, this condition is reflected in the features presented in Table 02. Let’s look at an example. Tactics are usually aimed at gaining unilateral advantage. We say usually because if a tactic is used as a best practice (e.g., package deals), it is not aimed at gaining unilateral advantage, but rather it seeks the best conduct throughout the negotiation process. On the other hand, if the tactic is a trick (e.g., objective lying), the aim is surely to gain unilateral advantage. The same reasoning must be applied to the other features.

Therefore, these are the parameters used to characterize a tactic:

a) The purpose of using a tactic.

b) Connection with the Power of Influence.

c) Existence of risks in its use.

d) Impact on the result when disclosing the use of tactics.

e) Negotiation environment where a tactic is used.

f) Use of manipulation to achieve the objectives.

g) Disclosing the purpose for the use of a tactic.

h) Ethical attitude related to the use of a tactic.

Figure 05 – Tactics, tricks, and best practices.

THE INTENTIONS BEHIND THE NEGOTIATION TACTICS

Negotiation tactics are characterized by being intentional and designed to fulfill a specific objective. However, some behaviors or psychological mechanisms can be confused with tactics. The difference is that these can be adopted unconsciously by people who lack technical and behavioral skills or in a circumstantial manner, where the context of the negotiation leads a negotiator to assume a behavior, not as a planned tactic but as an instinctive attitude, to overcome a deadlock or make the best decision.

In this context, those behaviors that could be confused with tactics end up being used unconsciously, based on our personality or style for dealing with conflicts. You can identify your style by answering the Style Matters survey, available at River House Press <https://www.riverhouseepress.com/>.

Figure 06 – Styles for dealing with conflicts.

The style we assume for dealing with conflicts (Figure 06) is based on the degree of assertiveness and cooperativeness adopted when we face a conflict, unconsciously influencing our behavior. Not only is each style featured by unconscious behaviors that can be confused with tactics, but they also end up influencing the choice of tactics adopted in negotiation since the negotiator will feel more comfortable using those that are more in line with their style.

Other unconscious behaviors are derived from the cultural background of the negotiator, as certain cultures prefer more aggressive tactics, while others are more inclined to choose those related to time or authority. The negotiators who might be aggressive often are not aware of their behavior, as they consider them part of a standard technique in the negotiation process.

Let’s look at an example of unconscious use of behavior: a person who lacks emotional skills and has a strong directing profile may lose control during a negotiation and threaten the counterparty using aggression. The negotiator does not adopt this behavior intentionally to make the other negotiator lose balance but as an instinctive act of defense or by pulling an emotional trigger. This person probably does not know that this behavior is inefficient and can seriously damage the relationship or the achievement of the negotiation objectives, or even if they are aware of it, they cannot have effective control over the incidental emotions.

Circumstantial behavior, on the other hand, is a result of the circumstances of the negotiation and can eventually be confused with a tactic. Let’s assume that you have prepared for a purchase and sale negotiation where it was not anticipated that future purchases of the product would be discussed. However, suppose during a negotiation, this issue comes up in the discussion, and you were forced to make a decision, without having enough power to make it. So, you decide to inform the other party that you will consult with your boss. This could be seen as using the limited authority tactic, but you had no prior intention of using it simply because you were not prepared for that subject.

In another situation, a person may intentionally use a tactic, such as the apparent withdrawal, not to deliberately manipulate the other party but because they have seen somewhere, for instance, in a movie, that it works. The fact is that this person does not have enough knowledge about negotiation and believes that the practice can be useful, so, at one point, the negotiator stands up from the table and threatens to leave if their own demands are not met. This tactic can really be useful but under certain conditions, such as leaving a communication channel open or a proposal on the table to be analyzed, waiting for the other party’s position.

But if we intentionally assume a behavior to achieve a particular effect, we are really talking about a maneuver, a move, or a negotiation tactic, which can be considered anything from a trick to best practice, depending on the intention and the context in which it is used.

APPLYING NEGOTIATION TACTICS

It can be hard to figure out when someone is using a tactic because some of them may seem like standard behavior or even best practices.

Since many behaviors that are considered normal may actually be a tactic, we must be careful that they are not interpreted as a trick to deceive the other party. Tricks are not acceptable when they are discovered, and they greatly undermine the expectation and trust placed on the other party. Other tactics, on the other hand, are acceptable but may also, in some way, affect the trust built between the parties if they are disclosed.

As we have already said, the interpretation of whether a behavior is natural, or part of a tactic depends on the culture, profile, and experience of each negotiator. We should keep in mind that what the other party thinks about us when we assume a particular behavior has more influence on the effect of that behavior than our original intention in using it. Therefore, consider the possibility of justifying particular behaviors towards the other party so that they are not mistaken for tricks, avoiding misinterpretations, and maintaining trust built in the relationship.

It is worth pointing out that a number of techniques can be questionable if not used properly. Or on the contrary, some techniques can become best practices as long as some care is taken.