Trite Negotiating Tactics

Dont’s

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Trite negotiating tactics

There are many books written about how to negotiate; a lot of them are written by American lawyers and full of anecdotes about various negotiations they have been involved in.

Usually they list a whole series of negotiating techniques which can be used. These goods and the techniques they contain are very dangerous, in that more than not the supposedly winning techniques are trite games that any skilled negotiators will be able to see straight through and use against you.

Among these techniques, which are commonly proposed are:

Good guy/bad guy

The same side fronts two advocates-one plays the moderate, reasonable approach, the other is aggressive and extreme. The idea is that at some point in the negotiations the moderate reasonable negotiator appears on his/her own attempts to persuade the other side to make concessions, while the team has the other advocate under some control.

Paper stack technique

A negotiating team arrives at the table with a very large amount of paper and documents. They refer to their extensive research and to the information they have but never make copies of the paper available. The team is intending to ‘’psyche’’ the other team into believing they have the issues completely under control. However often the papers are meaningless or have nothing to do with the negotiation. It is all just an act.

General rule

Don’t play games

The cost of getting caught is too high

1 Trite negotiating tactics are easily exposed

They generally don’t work

They don’t build trust and communication

TABLE MANNERS - surprise

Don’t surprise;

 The general belief that surprise is a good thing ie it catches the other side off guard and allows you to take the offensive.

 This is not so, surprises destabilises, undermines the progress of negotiation and tends to force one side to rebound back on you. If you surprise the other side they will, very likely react in a way that you wont expect-i.e you are now surprised, confused and destabilised.

 You cant manage expectations if you surprise. You will not develop trust and communication if you surprise.

Do’s

 Be consistent and clear

 Give the other side plenty of warning about what you want and what you are going to say.

Negotiators law

‘’You tell them what you are going to tell them, then you tell them again what you have told them’’

Leave the other side in no doubt about what you want.

TABLE MANNERS – Lock in tactics

A negotiating team can easily lock itself into a course of action form which it cannot deviate.

Typically someone will say something in negotiation, or prior to negotiation which effectively locks them into a course of action. For example; at a stop work meeting when, in the middle of a passionate speech, the union’s president says that he will never accept les than a 15% salary increase,he has locked himself into a position. He has to get 15% or he will lose face in front of the members.

This could possibly be negotiating tactic, i.e put to employers that there cannot be a settlement without this-but it is not a very good tactic.

A bad lock in tactic can be easily exposed by the other side. If in our example above, the union president has locked in, the easy response from the employer is to say i know you told

2 your members you won’t take less than 15%, we all have our goals and aspiration, i guess. Do you want to know what mine are. Alternatively you can make a joke and not take the lock in seriously.

Alternatively, resist on principle-‘’Fine Tom, I understand you made that statement publicly, but my practice is never to yield to publicity and pressure, only to reason. Now lets talk about the merits of the problem.’’

Lock in tactics can, however be very successful, provided:-

o You have very strong support for the lock in item

o You tell the other side so that they are left in n doubt as to your position;

o You never waiver

o You are prepared to bread down the negotiations on this issue.

TABLE MANNERS- Irritators

There are two types of irritators

. Language irritators

. Behaviour irritators

Certain words and phrases used during negotiations don’t add anything in persuading the other side, but do cause irritation. The hamper effective negotiation and settlement

Usually these words are value judgements. Probably the most commonly used are a ‘’generous’’ offer, a ‘’fair and reasonable’’ demand. These terms have little persuasive power on the other side, and are often used as self praise. They largely only serve to irritate the other party because of the implication that they are being unfair and unreasonable

Behaviour irritators

Certain ways of acting and behaving during negotiations don’t add anything to negotiaton except irritating the other side.

Types of these behaviours are:-

. Being late;

. Not meeting simple commitments;

. Not listening or paying attention

Often negotiators who use these behaviours do so on the basis that they think it makes them more important (or feel more important) eg ‘’they can wait for me for once’’. This is quite natural union/employer negotiation where, normally an employee is a subordinate to a manager and gets told what to do. When involved in union negotiation the employee

3 becomes an equal. In these circumstances the employee often feels the need to try and assert themselves.

General Rule

Don’t do it.

. It only serves to annoy the other side;

. It doesn’t achieve what you think it will achieve;

. It reduces communication and trust

What if it happens to you?

Expose it. Ask the other side why it is happening.

If you are going to be late, tell them

General Rule

Fulfil commitments .if you give someone a commitment that you will do something do it. The most common way commitments are not fulfilled are a failure to confirm commitments/agreements/positions in writing.

Failure to fulfil commitments reduces trust(why aren’t they responding when they said they would), and communication.

TABLE MANNERS – Threats

Negotiations are often full of threats-‘’if you do this, Iam going to do that....’’

In industrial relations negotiations, threats are probably even more commonly used.

For unions threats include:

. Industrial action;

. Publicity;

. Stop works;

. Legal action;

Threats are one of the most abused tactics in negotiation. A threat is easy to make-much easier than an offer. Threats reduce trust and communication.

General Rule

4 Only make threats when you can back them up. You must be able to deliver on any threat. What if threats are used against you, expose them. Ask them are they threatening you and why.

TABLE MANNGETS – Personal attacks

Putting down the other side ,personal jibes, innuendoes, smart comments are often seen as part of negotiating, and is often openly indulged in by both sides.

Personal attacks often have a mythology about them in negotiation. They are seen as necessary by each side in:-

. Putting down the other side;

. Asserting your own side;

. Asserting your cleverness;

. Putting the other side off its guard;

. Building team feeling;

Often personal attacks/jibes/jokes become one of the most remembered things about disputes/negotiations. They form part of the forklore about negotiations.

If we remember our negotiations usually we only remember our successful ones by this forklore, new negotiators will come to expect the way to negotiate is to make these attacks.

What do personal attacks really do?

. Destabilise

. Annoy, pester, infuriate the other side

. Break down trust and communications

. Force the other side to dig in on their position

. Produce counter attacks from the other side-destabilises your own team. The weak link gets picked on and unity is destroyed(they are off thinking about something else)

. Negotiation does occur, but both sides spend more time attacking and defending that they do negotiating.

TABLE MANNERS-Extreme demands

5 One of the great facilities in negotiation is the idea many people have is that you claim one figure, the other side claims another figure and eventually you reach agreement somewhere near the middle.

Consequently in wage negotiation this is assumed to mean that if you are claiming 20%, the employer is claiming 0%, then you will probably settle around 10%.

This sort of view tends to encourage extreme demands.

The belief is that the higher or lower you claim, the more likely you are to manage the expectations of the other side towards what you want.

In reality, extreme demands do not act in this way and generally work against the side who is making them.

. It raises fake expectations among your term and your ratifiers

. It destabilises your relationship with your team and your ratifiers, when you are unable to deliver

. It aggravates the other side-destabilises negotiations

. It works against the process of trust and communication

. It produces counter claims at extreme positions

. It forces the other side to dig in

. Your credibility can be easily undermined-ie justify your position, you cant

TABLE MANNERS – Argument dilution

‘’Too much of good thing’’

Most people have a picture of negotiation which looks like a balance or a set of scales.

This idea leads to the belief that there is some special merit in quantity. The more arguments you can get on your side, the more the scales will tip in your favour. Eg if we find five reasons for doing something, then this is more persuasive than one reason.

As a consequence, some negotiators enter into negotiations with their long lists of arguments generally ordered in the most powerful, to the least powerful. Negotiations becomes putting forward your claim and then running through all your arguments. While this is generally assumed to be good negotiating skills, the converse generally applies.

Skilled negotiators tend to use fewer reasons to back up an argument. Why? This suggests that there is a disadvantage to advancing a whole series of reasons to back up a case. Why?

Putting forward a whole series of arguments leads to ‘’argument dilution’’.

6 The more reasons advanced, the more a case is potentially diluted. In advancing a lot of reasons, the negotiator exposes for counter arguments not only his/her strongest argument but also their weakest argument. The other side will concentrate its attack on the weak argument. Your endeavours/energies will be spent defending your weak argument from attack, instead of advancing your strong one. The weakest /poorest argument is a lowest common denominator, weak argument generally dilute strong one.

The skilled negotiator tends to advance a number of strong reasons to explain the demand given the issue, a long and detailed examination. If they say no, the other side will believe you have given it thorough consideration.

A short response can indicate your total opposition to a proposal and that you are affronted that it has been raised.

TABLE MANNERS – The ‘’Wear them out tactic’’

A common tactic used is to have long negotiating sessions drawn out over a number of days. The sessions can be used to tire out the other side and reduce their resistance. The tactic is to leave them sweating it out all night.

Although this tactic seems basic and easy to avoid, an approaching deadline for one side means that it can be very successful.

In order to negate this tactic being used against you, it is important to remember the need to ensure :-

. Physical environment –this needs to be pleasant

. Adequate preparation – issues, facilities

. Timing – leave enough time so you are not pushed.

. If the other side is using this tactic, confront them

. Use any spare time well

If negotiations have long breaks, use them well.

. Review what is happening;

. Discuss where you are going;

. Plan next step;

. Check your roadmap;

. Build team unity;

. Discuss team concerns;

. Rest, relax, keep awake and alert.

7 TABLE MANNERS – Separate the people from the problem

In negotiations, you are not dealing with abstract representatives of the other side, but with people. They have emotions, values and a different background and viewpoint, and they are unpredictable. So you are.

People get angry, depressed, fearful, hostile, frustrated, and offended. They have egos that are easily threatened. They see the world from their own personal vantage point, and they frequently confuse their perceptions with reality. They often fail to interpret what you say in the way you intend and do not mean what you understand them say. Misunderstanding reinforces prejudice and leads to counter reactions which make negotiation impossible.

Whatever else you are doing at any point during negotiations, from preparation to follow up, it is worth asking yourself, ‘’am I paying enough attention to the people problem’’.

A major consequence of the people problem in negotiations is that the parties relationships tend to become entangled with their discussions of substance.

How do we overcome this problem?

Separate the relationship from the issue. Dealing with the substantive problem and maintaining a good working relationship need not be in conflict.

The people problem can be seen in four ways:-

. Perception

. Emotion

. Communication

. Working relationships

Perception

Try to understand what the other side is thinking and where they are coming from. Put yourself in their shoes, if you can understand their problems, position, fears etc you will be in a better position to manage them.

If you are unsure about why they have said something or done something, ask for an explanation, seek information. The explanation will enable you deal with and manage their real intentions, not your perception of their intentions.

Don’t blame them for your problem

Blaming someone else is a very easy mode to fall into. It is however, usually counter productive in two ways:-

It may not be the fault of the person your blaming;

It will be seen as a personal attack and produce a defence counter response. 8 Rather than blame someone for a problem, focus on the issue itself, not the problem.

Look to change their faulty perception of you and your position

The other side will have predetermined perceptions of you, your position and your intentions. More often than not they will be wrong.

A good negotiation will attempt to act in away which forces the other side to review its perceptions and adopt a more positive image of you and your position.

Emotion

First recognise and understand emotion, theirs and yours.

Make emotions explicit. A common view in negotiations that a good negotiator is totally unemotional – a great stone face.

Emotions, however, once controlled, can be used very effectively in negotiations, by making emotion explicit, it underscores the seriousness of the issue and can make the negotiations less reactive.

Eg ‘’you know the people on our side feel we have been mistreated and are very upset. We are afraid that unless this issue is resolved the mistreatment will continue’’

Allow the other side to let off steam. Outbursts of emotion, anger, frustration, will occur in negotiations. Provided that these attacks are not personal attacks or threats, it is best not to be drawn into making a counter outburst. Sit there listen to them, and allow them to let off steam.

Often after the initial outburst, progress can be made. Don’t try to make the other side feel guilty or feel like they have lost face.

Communication

There are three major problems in communication

First: the negotiators may not be talking to each other, or may not be talking in away which can be understood. The negotiators may be talking in jargon, platitudes, or just raving about nothing.

Second: although the negotiators may be talking clearly, they may not be hearing each other ie not paying attention to what is being said

Thirdly: the negotiators may be misunderstanding each other.

What can be done to overcome these problems

. Listen actively and acknowledge what is being said;

. Speak to be understood;

. Speak about yourself and your position, not about them;

. Speak for a purpose 9 Working relationships

In most negotiating situations, you will know the people you will be negotiating with. You will often have longer term working relationship with these people. The better you know them and they know you the easier your working relationship should be. A good negotiator will spend time trying to build a god working relationship. If people have trust and communication with each other, the job of negotiating with them is made easier.

Road map-Based on

. Own position

. Employer position

. Time available

. Claims available

By Deluxe Bwalya Mwansa

Director Workers Education,

Zambia Union of Financial Institutions and Allied Workers (ZUFIAW)

1st floor Luangwa House, Cairo Road, Lusaka

Email [email protected] or [email protected], 0976096714