Читать книгу The Kremlin School of Negotiation - Igor Ryzov - Страница 8
Оглавление1.
MASTERING THE KREMLIN SCHOOL OF NEGOTIATION
Better ten years of negotiation than one day of war.
– ANDREI ANDREYEVICH GROMYKO,
former Soviet Ambassador to the United Kingdom
What is negotiation – a science, or an art? Many will argue that of course it’s a science: after all, there are clear laws, refined systems and methods that, once mastered, give you everything you need to become a good negotiator. Which is undoubtedly true. Others, however, will argue that of course it’s an art: after all, not everyone needs these laws – some people are just born with it. These people don’t simply know how to negotiate, they feel it, and they can negotiate at any time, with anyone and about anything, with great success. Their words and gestures are like Picasso’s brush strokes. This is also true. But this gift isn’t given to everyone, no matter how many people aspire (and diligently study) to reach Picasso’s heights. Which is why I believe that negotiation is both an art that is inseparable from the individual, and a science consisting of clear-cut laws, concepts and goals.
IDENTIFYING YOUR NEGOTIATION OPPONENT’S GOALS AND MOTIVES
Essentially, negotiation can be viewed as a sort of sport: after all, sport is the place where art and science intersect. But, just as becoming a professional sportsperson requires constant work and regular training, no single book or course will make you a great negotiator. Only you can do that. So, dear reader, view this book as something of a description of the training process. Everything else is down to you. The more you practise, the more noticeably your skills will improve, and the more achievable your goals will become. What form this practice takes is up to you. Whether you practise through drills or at club meetings, with sparring partners or in the workplace, there is only one rule: the more you practise, the better the results.
Consider the question:
is it possible to win or lose negotiations?
Many schools of negotiation maintain that yes, negotiations can – and must – be won. There is even the oft-prescribed approach of the ‘win–win’ negotiation, which we’ll talk about later. Others maintain that the key to negotiating is never losing; that victory is paramount.
My point of view (and of this I am convinced) is this:
Negotiations cannot be won or lost. What you can do, however, is determine exactly where you are in the negotiation process, and what the next steps need to be.
It is very dangerous to view the negotiation process from a win/loss perspective, for several reasons. Firstly, when our minds are fixed on the win or loss at hand, we focus on tactics at the cost of strategy. Negotiations become duels, and negotiators duellists. Secondly, in the grand scheme of things, something deemed a ‘win’ isn’t necessarily good, nor a ‘loss’ necessarily bad: it’s impossible to predict how agreements will affect future processes. No one knows what the future holds; all we can do is guess. And while today we may be celebrating an apparent negotiation ‘win’, tomorrow we may be lamenting such a bad deal. I can give you any number of examples of this.
An acquaintance of mine did some – to his mind very successful – negotiating with a travel firm, and secured a nice discount on a group tour. He thought he had won that negotiation. However, two days later the travel firm went bust, leaving him out of pocket and down a trip. So does that then mean he lost?
I spent years working in the drinks distribution market, and have seen many similar situations first-hand. For example, after drawn-out negotiations with one major seller, my team was delighted to finally sign our contract. ‘We’ve won, we’ve done it, we’ve got the contract!’ we thought. But not long afterwards the other company went under, without paying us in full for products we had already supplied. What could we do? This is why it is extremely important to always know what your next step after negotiations is going to be.
Negotiations aren’t the final round in a bout to determine winner and loser; they are a process – at times a very long one. This is why from the start you need to rid your mind of any thoughts of negotiations as just another round in a duel. Negotiations should only ever be viewed as a process.
Rudolph Mokshantsev, author and PhD, suggests that negotiations are a complex process comprising:
• the pursuit of an agreement between people with differing interests;
• the discussion of parties’ differing positions in order to find an acceptable solution;
• debate between two or more parties in order to overcome incompatible goals;
• the trading of concessions, in which one party’s concession is a direct and calculated response to a preceding concession from the other party;
• ongoing communication between parties with differing and intersecting interests, through which the parties either reach an agreement or fail to do so, depending on the expected implications of such an agreement.
Negotiations presuppose a dialogue between equal partners that are relatively independent of one another, although in reality this may not be the case.
Negotiations as a dialogue between parties that may lead to an agreement
If we are to speak of negotiations as a science, then the science of negotiation is grounded in mathematics and psychology. The weight accorded to each of these two sciences in the negotiation process will depend on the sphere in which these negotiations are being held. In diplomatic negotiations, for example, mathematics – that queen of sciences – holds particular sway, although psychology shouldn’t be discounted completely. In business negotiations, on the other hand, the balance of mathematics and psychology tends to be roughly fifty-fifty, whereas in domestic negotiations psychology is generally the guiding factor.
Some negotiation models based on theory alone urge us to approach negotiation from a place of logic, to put the psychological aspect to one side. An example of this is the suggestion that negotiators find the ‘mean’ solution as a compromise.
While straightforward enough in theory, this task can be a dead end in practice. Let’s say a seller names a price of 10,000 roubles for a product, expecting to sell it for somewhere between 8,000 and 9,000 roubles. A buyer makes them a counter-offer of 8,000 roubles, although they are actually prepared to pay somewhere in the region of 8,500–9,500 roubles. From a theoretical perspective this is all very straightforward: we simply add the two and divide them to get a mean of 9,000 roubles. And, as I’m sure you’ll agree, this all looks perfectly lovely – in theory. But in the real world, things are far more complicated.
Ivan and Fyodor are negotiating the sale/purchase of a car. Ivan is selling his car for one million roubles, but Fyodor only has 800,000. So Fyodor phones Ivan and says, ‘Vanya, buddy, I’ll give you 800 grand.’ Ivan, having weighed up his own interests against the logic of compromise, immediately agrees.
On the face of things, this is a fair, successful negotiation. We could even go so far as to call it ideal: both sides get what they want. Both Ivan and Fyodor should be very pleased. They should both feel like winners. But this is just at first glance.
Now, try to put yourself in Fyodor’s, the buyer’s, shoes. Sure, you got what you wanted for the money you had, and you didn’t even have to rack your brains to find some extra cash (as you would have done had Ivan dug his heels in a bit more). But didn’t you stop to think how strange it was that Ivan suddenly cut his price by 20 per cent? This question will soon become a torment. ‘Why would he agree to my price so quickly? There must be something wrong with the car . . .’ And with that, your new car – the one that mere hours ago gave you such joy – is causing you pain, filling you with doubt and anxiety.
Now put yourself in Ivan’s, the seller’s, shoes. You will also be tearing yourself apart. ‘Why did I agree to his price so quickly?’ you’ll ask yourself. ‘Obviously I wasn’t expecting the full million, but I could have wrangled another 100,000 roubles from him, 50k at least.’
So where does that get us? It appears that even ideal negotiations are far from perfect in practice. Neither side of this deal came away fully satisfied.
Studies have shown that the probability of reaching a square deal like this one is 0.16, or 16 per cent. But because this probability is actually twice as high as that of striking a deal through a model that involves a more gradual narrowing of differences (which is 8 per cent), many negotiators plump for this option. However, for the most part, the results of these ‘square deals’ are later called into question. Psychology gets in the way. Whereas a model involving a gradual narrowing of differences puts psychology front and centre right from the start, a reliable companion and aide during the negotiation process.
People aren’t computers. We all have emotions.
It is crucial to view your opponent as a subject rather than an object.
At times, we reject even interesting proposals made by our opponents without quite being able to explain why. Of course, we will eventually find ourselves some sort of explanation. ‘But how were we supposed to take that coming from an opponent? It’s common sense that they would do such-and-such instead!’ Well, yes, logically speaking. But then emotions come into play. This is why specialists highlight three vectors as being particularly important to the negotiation process. It is these three vectors in particular that we will study over the course of this book. These are:
• the ability to defend one’s interests;
• the ability to manage one’s emotions; and
• the ability to manage the emotions of others.
Negotiations are, above all, a process. With this process in mind, we must identify both the type of negotiations we are taking part in and our opponent’s motives.
Many sales specialists believe that if a buyer invites them to negotiations it means the buyer is automatically interested in doing business with them, and that this will therefore be the purpose of the negotiations. This is a rookie mistake.
For several months, Andrei, the manager of a company selling construction materials, has been negotiating with the procurement manager of a construction company. Andrei knows for a fact (nor is the buyer hiding this) that the construction company is currently buying in its materials from a competitor. During these negotiations, the procurement manager has repeatedly stressed that they enjoy working with this competitor. They are happy with the quality and price that the competitor offers, as well as their fast service. The buyer isn’t refusing to negotiate with Andrei, but they never manage to get down to the nitty-gritty. Andrei keeps on offering them discounts, shares and better terms, all in the hope of poaching their business. After four months of futile efforts, Andrei learns by chance that the buyer has been using his quotes to get better terms from the competitor.
In this example, it is clear that the buyer’s motives have nothing to do with a future partnership, but Andrei doesn’t see what is really driving the discussions and so falls straight into the trap.
This happens quite a lot. A man decides he wants the best possible deal on a car, and so conducts his own pseudo request for tenders. He goes to every car dealership in town, using one single phrase to get the best possible price: ‘Your rival offered me a better deal.’ He is, in effect, putting his competitors head to head. The dealership managers, believing he’s negotiating because he intends to buy from them, get caught in his net.
Fred Charles Iklé, an American sociologist, political scientist and author of books including Every War Must End and How Nations Negotiate, outlines the following types of and motives for negotiations:
• Negotiations with a view to extending existing agreements. Such negotiations are often held in the trade sphere to extend the validity of a contract, or to add certain clarifications or changes to a new contract to reflect the current state of affairs. Such negotiations are also not uncommon when extending labour contracts.
• Negotiations with a view to normalising relations. These presume a transition from a conflict situation to a different relationship between the parties (neutrality or co-operation).
• Negotiations with a view to finalising redistribution agreements. These negotiations are when one party takes an aggressive position and demands changes to agreements that are to their advantage, at a cost to other parties. Such negotiations take place when haggling over a price or other material resources – an increase or decrease in rent, for example.
• Negotiations with a view to reaching a new agreement. These are intended to establish a new relationship and new obligations between parties. Negotiations with a new partner, for example.
• Negotiations with a view to gathering information. Indirect results may not be reflected in agreements, and in some cases the negotiations may not even lead to an agreement at all. Examples of this type of negotiation include talks to establish contact, identify partners’ points of view or influence public opinion.
Iklé wrote his books in the twentieth century. In light of present-day practice, we can extend this list to include:
• Negotiations with a view to misleading an opponent. These are, quite simply, an imitation of the negotiation process. Opponents often enter the negotiation process and deliberately draw it out, safe in the knowledge that time is on their side. In this type of negotiation, every one of your proposals will be met with a ‘maybe’, a ‘we’ll need to consult on this’ or similar.
• Provocation. Negotiations with a view to showing the other party’s inability to negotiate.
It is very important to identify your opponent’s primary motive in the early stages of the negotiation process, and to use this knowledge when deciding on your next steps.
I once acted as a mediator in negotiations to settle a dispute between two companies and a bank. The dispute concerned a joint debt repayment for an enterprise that had gone bankrupt.
Every meeting came to nothing, but our opponent kept on initiating negotiations, declaring their willingness to settle the matter in a ‘constructive’ manner. Yet when it came to the negotiating table, the same party kept putting forward absurd demands. Whenever the talks broke down, we couldn’t understand what was preventing us from reaching an agreement. Then it dawned on us: our opponent simply didn’t want to share their part of the debt. Their goal was to avoid it. Meaning their main task was to prove our inability to negotiate. Once we’d figured out their real motive, we were able to fundamentally change the course of the negotiation process.
The negotiator’s primary task is to identify what type of negotiations their opponent is leading and, with a better understanding of the process at hand, to select an appropriate negotiation strategy.
WHO IS STRONGER IN NEGOTIATIONS – THE LION OR THE FOX?
Some five hundred years ago, Niccolò Machiavelli – that great bard of public administration – wrote:
Since a ruler has to be able to act the beast, he should take on the traits of the fox and the lion; the lion can’t defend itself against snares and the fox can’t defend itself from wolves. So you have to play the fox to see the snares and the lion to scare off the wolves. A ruler who just plays the lion and forgets the fox doesn’t know what he’s doing.1
Now, I realise that the negotiator is no ruler, but negotiation carries with it the same requirement to get smart, shall we say.
I have already mentioned how, in negotiation, two points are particularly important. One is the ability to defend one’s interests. As far as Machiavelli goes, this is pretty much comparable to the ability to be a lion. But the ability to be a lion is not enough on its own, as you might not notice the snare.
The thing is, when we defend our own interests, we can inadvertently lay down our own snares – the very ones Machiavelli warns against. What snares are these, you ask? Emotions. Emotions that prevent us from defending our interests, progressing and realising our goals. To use our emotions the right way, we need to play the fox. Together, these abilities are key to negotiation. Like a ruler, a negotiator should take on the traits of the lion as well as the fox.
In other words, the ability to play the fox as well as the lion lies at the heart of effective negotiation.
Before exploring the methods and tactics for defending one’s interests (à la the lion) and managing one’s emotions (à la the fox), I would first like to look at one of the toughest and most brutal schools of negotiation. Yes, you read that right. Brutal.
Legend has it that this school was born in Russia in the 1920s, and it still has its followers and advocates to this day. It is known by many as the Kremlin school of negotiation.
So what is it? Before answering this question, we should note that this was a school born of the Soviet Union, a country under constant external pressure. A country whose diplomats, no matter where they were stationed, had to show real toughness and decisiveness simply to withstand such pressure.
Andrei Andreyevich Gromyko, one of the most prominent diplomats and political figures of the age, was a master of the Kremlin school of negotiation. A remarkable man, and a diplomat of his time, he outlived virtually every General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. His diplomatic career started young, when he was just thirty, and, under Joseph Stalin’s rule, at an extremely precarious time. Gromyko’s first major posting was as the USSR’s ambassador to the USA.
What is this man known for? Well, in the West, he earned himself the nickname Mr Nyet, meaning ‘Mr No’. You can probably guess why. Yet the man himself maintained that he heard the word ‘no’ much more often than he said it. And if he did say it, it was almost always with one sole aim: to prevent himself from being manipulated. Or rather, not himself, but the country he was representing. The ability to negotiate – including in its tougher and more brutal forms – was an integral skill for every diplomat of the time.
So what teachings does the Kremlin school of negotiation build on? This school is based on five postulates, or gambits. Let’s take a closer look at each one.
The five postulates of the Kremlin school of negotiation
Postulate 1: keep quiet and listen attentively to what your opponent says Keep quiet and listen. What’s so tough – so brutal – about this, you ask? At first glance, nothing. Nothing at all. But let’s take a closer look. What happens when your opponent stays quiet and listens to you? You talk. When people listen to us – especially if they are attentive, taking note of what we say – we expose ourselves. To keep quiet and listen is to play human flaws to your advantage.
People are talkative. We toss ‘breadcrumbs’, unwittingly giving away unnecessary information, answering questions no one asked. Anyone who works in procurement will have mastered this ploy and will already know just how effective it is.
The dialogue below gives you an idea of how this gambit typically goes.
Sales representative (SR): I would like to present our product to you. Here is our business proposal.
Buyer (B): Yes . . .
SR: Well, initially we would propose our starting conditions, but after three months we can give you a longer payment window.
B: Go on.
SR: We can also offer you a discount – and a promotion.
B: Right.
SR: And free shipping.
Often all it takes is for us to listen for our opponents to start dishing everything up to us on a silver platter. But when we drop these information ‘breadcrumbs’, offering up insights we haven’t even been asked for, we make our opponent’s task much easier and complicate things for ourselves.
When we listen, we win our opponent’s favour. We make it clear that we are interested in what they have to say. And when a person sees their opponent show a genuine interest in what they have to say, it is only natural for them to start to reveal more, because they want to be as useful as they can. After all, it’s so rare for anyone to actually listen to us nowadays!
However, don’t let yourself get too relaxed. This is a very serious trap.
I agree with Eliyahu Goldratt, originator of the Theory of Constraints: in negotiations, it is important to be ‘paranoid’, so to speak2 – always looking and planning for possible dangers. Every single word we say must be carefully weighed up. When we drop our metaphorical breadcrumbs, we give away extremely valuable information, presenting our opponent with a hook that they will most certainly use to try to reel us in.
An example from the Second World War: after the Soviet Union’s entry into the war, the prospect of the opening of the second front became a key question. For the Soviet Union in particular, knowing when the USA and UK planned to do this was paramount. This issue came to a head in the run-up to the Tehran Conference, a strategy meeting of leaders of the USA, USSR and UK that took place between 28 November and 1 December 1943. All of the official Soviet agencies – including the secret service – were working around the clock to try to find out their allies’ plans.
Not long before the conference in Tehran, Kirill Novikov, then acting Soviet ambassador to the UK in London, was instructed to urgently inform the UK Foreign Office that he was to be included in the Soviet government’s delegation for the summit in Tehran. He was told to request permission to travel to Tehran with the UK delegation. Of course, he explained that there was no other way of him getting from London to Tehran. The British agreed.
Novikov flew on the same flight as Churchill, head of the British delegation. In Cairo, where the flight made a stopover, a dinner was served for Churchill. As the guests dispersed, Churchill offered the Soviet diplomat a drink ‘for the road’. They had a friendly, unconstrained conversation, and Novikov gave the British Prime Minister his full attention, hanging on his every word. Out of the blue, Churchill asked, ‘Mr Novikov, I suppose you want to know when we will open the second front?’ before immediately continuing: ‘Not before 2 May 1944.’
Novikov was stunned. All of Soviet reconnaissance had been straining to get this information, and he had just got it from Churchill himself.
Upon arrival in Tehran, Novikov wrote a quick memo and Stalin was immediately informed. So when discussion of the second front came up at the conference, he already knew the Western Allies’ position, meaning he had an extra move up his sleeve. On 1 December 1943, the participants of the Tehran Conference signed a historic document announcing that Operation Overlord would be launched in May 1944.
Postulate 2: ask questions
The negotiator listens. Then they ask questions. In doing so, they can steer the conversation as their own interests dictate. Negotiators who find themselves listened to and asked questions will often take the bait and talk more; offer more.
This is a key moment in any negotiation. It is at this moment that the opponents are assigned their first roles. We will go into roles in more detail later, but for the time being I would just like to highlight a few key points.
At this early stage of negotiation, it is through tactics like these that the first negotiation roles are assigned: namely, those of ‘host’ and ‘guest’. The ‘host’ is the one who asks the questions; the ‘guest’ is the one who answers them. The ‘host’ enquires; the ‘guest’ offers. And with this, that most well-known pair of roles begins to take root: you offer me something, and I’ll choose if I want it. I am the ‘host’.
When you entertain a guest in your home, you get to ask the questions. But remember: in negotiations, the host isn’t the party doing the hosting in a geographical sense, but the person asking the questions. The host is the one who controls the agenda, even if their opponent believes the opposite is true. The opponent thinks that because they are doing all the talking, they must be running the show. They equate talking with leading. Not so. The person controlling the conversation is the one asking the questions; the one listening.
Negotiations in an official’s office:
Visitor (V): We would like to ask you to free up some land for us to construct a supermarket.
Official (O): What do you plan to sell?
V: Consumer goods. These are important items for residents, and we have experience in this retail segment.
O: Tell me more.
V: Well, we have had branches operating in many Russian regions since 2000, and we have a wealth of experience and positive reviews.
O: And in this region?
V: None as yet.
O: Then come back to me when you do.
From the very first second, the official takes on the role of ‘host’, asking their ‘guest’ a variety of questions before coming to a decision – the one that is most advantageous to them.
In my experience, this is often a point of confusion for many retailers. ‘Where did I go wrong?’ they will ask. ‘I gave them all the information they wanted and politely answered their questions, but in the end they went with someone else.’ To which I answer: when we answer questions, we become the ‘guest’; we give our opponent the role of ‘host’ and, in doing so, the right of refusal. And, having won that right, the buyer is certain to make the most of it.
You must fight for the role of ‘host’. This is crucial. If you feel you’re being asked more questions than strictly necessary, know that with every question asked you are being drawn further from your goal. So you must break this chain and seize back the initiative through counter-questions.
Let’s see how some well-placed counter-questions could have led to a very different outcome in the dialogue above.
V: We would like to ask you to free up some land for us to construct a supermarket
O: What do you plan to sell?
V: Consumer goods. These are important items for residents, and we have experience in this retail segment.
O: Tell me more.
V: Well, we have had branches operating in many Russian regions since 2000, and we have a wealth of experience and positive reviews. But tell me, do you think your residents would appreciate having a wide range of affordable goods within easy reach?
O: That’s an interesting question . . . I think so, perhaps.
V: I would be very grateful if you could take a look at our plans and give us your expert opinion. Would you prefer them by email, or on paper?
O: I prefer paper documents.
Through their counter-questions, the visitor wrests back the role of ‘host’ and in so doing puts themselves in a better position to progress in negotiations.
After answering a question, always ask your opponent a counter-question.
On a packed metro carriage:
’Excuse me, are you getting off at the next stop?’
‘Yes.’
‘And are the people ahead of you getting off at the next stop?’
‘Yes, don’t worry.’
‘Have you asked them?’
‘Yes, I have.’
‘And what did they say?’
‘They said they’re getting off.’
‘And you actually believed them?’
Postulate 3: impose a scale of values or ‘depreciate’
Next, whoever is playing ‘host’ will start to introduce their own value system. This marks the next stage of negotiations. As soon as this scale of values has been introduced, the state of play changes completely. This is because the party in the role of ‘host’ can now raise up or pull down the ‘guest’ at will, based on their own values.
Three hundred prominent scientists have assembled in a large hall. A bag is brought into the hall containing fifteen items. The scientists have no idea what these items are. The contents of the bag are emptied onto a table, and the scientists are given the task of arranging the objects by order of significance. There is an added twist: these objects have all been retrieved from a shipwreck. The scientists are given thirty minutes to complete the task. After this time has elapsed, a man from a law enforcement agency (this is clear from his physique, appearance and way of holding himself) comes into the hall and asks the scientists if they have completed their task. Needless to say, they have not: three hundred scientists could not come to a consensus in such a short space of time. To which the man says, ‘And you call yourself smart? You couldn’t deal with such an easy task as that!’
Can you see how the scientists’ sense of importance might suddenly take a dive?
But back to negotiation. Anyone who has worked in sales will probably have experienced the following situation more than once.
A buyer well-versed in negotiation methods takes a look at your proposal, tosses it to one side and asks: ‘So, what, you think you’re unique? You think I can’t get this anywhere else?’ As intended, these comments will start to make you feel that bit smaller.
In another example, a boss says to his subordinate: ‘What, you think you’re a star or something? That you’re the only one who can do this?’
Turning points like these almost always lead to one thing only: the person being addressed instantly slides a step or two (read: falls headlong) down their own scale of values.
A history exam at a university. The exam takes the form of an interview.
One student has paid the examiner a bribe of 1,000 roubles, the second 500 roubles, and the third nothing at all. The first student comes in for his exam. The examiner asks:
‘In what year did the Great Patriotic War start?’
‘1941.’
‘Good. A.’
The second student enters and is asked:
‘In what year did the Great Patriotic War start?’
‘1941.’
‘And when did it end?’
‘In 1945.’
‘Good. A.’
The third student enters and is asked:
‘In what year did the Great Patriotic War start?’
‘1941.’
‘And when did it end?’
‘In 1945.’
‘And how many people died?’
‘20 million.’
‘Now name them all!’
A colleague is ‘depreciated’
Maria is a driven young woman working in an in-house marketing and publicity team. She graduated from a top university and has five years’ experience at some major firms behind her. But whenever she speaks to her manager, a forty-five-year-old man who likes to throw his weight around, he always says things like: ‘Masha, dear, you probably don’t have the experience for such a complex assignment yet,’ or: ‘Your degree’s hardly going to cut it on an assignment like this.’ Maria, meanwhile, is running around like a headless chicken trying to prove herself to her manager.
Postulate 4: ‘roll out the red carpet’
Now you’re probably wondering why Maria simply does her manager’s bidding? Surely she knows a situation like this is unsustainable – how much should a person have to prove? That’s because after ‘depreciating’ Maria, her manager always rolls out the ‘red carpet’ for her. Now, I don’t mean a red carpet in the sense of a ceremonious greeting; view it as more of an appealing path to follow. Something along the lines of: ‘Fine, Masha, if you insist, I’m prepared to give you a shot at this while I consider it. Just make sure . . .’
When a ‘depreciation’ puts someone in a subordinate role, it is only natural for them to feel somewhat uncomfortable in that position – which means they will do anything they can to get out of it. This is when a tough professional negotiator – like Maria’s manager – will make use of the play we call ‘rolling out the red carpet’.
As it happens, this play actually has its roots in an old Chinese stratagem.
Show your enemy there is a road to life
Government troops have surrounded a band of thieves in the mountains. The thieves are many in number, and they are well armed and well stocked with provisions. Despite suffering great losses, the government troops haven’t been able to capture any of them. They turn to an old commander for advice.
The commander asks them about possible means of escape, and is assured that not even a mouse could get past the government troops. To this he replies: ‘Then of course they’ll fight until the bitter end. Since you have cut off their road to life, all that remains for them is to fight to the death. Show your enemy there is a road to life! Surreptitiously leave a passage unmanned in an inconspicuous spot. The thieves are many in number, and they are all different. Some of them will regret their choices; others may have been recruited by force. And some of them will simply be cowards. Once they see a way out, they will run through it one after the other. And then even your average postal worker will have no trouble rounding them up!’
That is what they did. Sure enough, the thieves were caught, brought to the capital and put to death.
A person who feels backed up against a wall has two options: they can either make a desperate attempt at resistance, or simply do nothing and let themselves be crushed. Similarly, a negotiator who feels backed up against a wall can choose one of three courses of action: they can either attack, escape or play dead.
Truth be told, none of these options lead to great results for either party. To make matters worse, what they do lead to is a sense of pressure or manipulation. This is where the play described above comes in handy. If you can show the person backed up against a wall a possible way out; if you can bring it out as an opportunity for ‘victory’ while saving face, then the outcome will change quite markedly. This is why it is always worth preparing two techniques prior to negotiations: one that will give you the upper hand, and another that will let your opponent lose while still saving face. Should the latter come to pass, when your opponent is backed up against a wall you need to know how to roll out the red carpet for them to walk down, wilfully choosing their own defeat. Only then will they be satisfied with the outcome of the negotiations.
For months a young man has unsuccessfully been trying to get a passport for international travel. All of his applications to date have been refused for a variety of reasons, each time with a request for some new document or other. Exasperated, he has found some leverage over the person handling his case – through their boss. The boss has assured him he will have a word with the handler.
Returning to the passport office with all the swagger of a champion, the man kicks open the door and says, ‘Didn’t I tell you? Now give me my passport!’
‘Yes sir, here it is.’
This story has a very sad ending. At the border, the chip in the passport turns out to be defective. Now what are the chances of that happening? Oh well, better luck next time.
All because the young man didn’t give his opponent the chance to save face and lose with dignity.
Treat your opponent not as the role they perform, but as the human they are. Everybody has emotions, and these are often what govern our actions.
Instead, this man should have rolled out the red carpet for his opponent. For example:
‘Maria Stepanovna [the handler, after her manager has already had a word with her], last time you told me to re-write my statement. Could you check everything is in order this time?’
‘All right, I’ll take a look. Oh, will you look at that, it’s fine.’
A simple gesture like this in no way detracts from your status – quite the opposite. After all, it brings you closer to the outcome you want.
The red carpet rule is the essence of the fourth postulate
of the Kremlin school of negotiation: making the opponent an offer they can’t refuse.
This play might sound something like this: ‘Well, fine, seeing as you’re here, if you can offer me a discount I’ll take a look at your proposal.’ In the majority of cases, your opponent will happily accept.
So, to begin with we listened to our opponent carefully. Then we asked questions, steering the conversation towards our objectives. As we did this, the opponent gave us lots of unnecessary information, things we hadn’t even thought to ask. And then we smoothly and discreetly introduced our own scale of values and gave the opponent a sharp dip in importance. And now our opponent finds themselves in a role and position they would very much like to get out of.
Now is the moment to roll out our red carpet, giving them the way out they’re so desperate for. Of course, our opponent will seize this opportunity with both hands: the position they have unexpectedly found themselves in is so unpleasant. Not to mention the fact that the terms of this ‘surprise escape’ do go some way towards achieving what they wanted. But only to some extent, and only at first glance.
If statistics are to be believed, then this method gets results in roughly 80–90 per cent of cases. But is 90 per cent always enough? At times only 100 per cent rock-solid results will do.
Which is why one more lever is brought into play, one that allows the user to crank their negotiation success rate up to 98 per cent.
Postulate 5: put the opponent in the zone of uncertainty
As a buyer I know from a major federal chain once put it: ‘No one has ever squeezed better terms out of a supplier than those the supplier squeezes out of themselves.’
So what does it mean to put someone in the zone of uncertainty?
You say something like ‘I’m not sure how my management will react to your refusal,’ or ‘I don’t know if it’ll be possible to bring you into our distribution network.’
It’s hard to put in words what happens in a seller’s mind when they hear this. You see, the seller has already been picturing all of the upsides of this deal, and the knock-on effect it will have for their business. Faced with uncertainty, who wouldn’t start to ask, beg, even plead – whatever it takes to coax out another chance? Who wouldn’t promise their opponent all imaginable (and unimaginable) bonuses, agree to any number of concessions?
Why does this happen? Fear gets a hold on us. Fear is a most powerful weapon.
Fear can also be described as a state of over-motivation, of ‘need’. The term ‘need’ is described well in Jim Camp’s book Start with NO.3 This is when a person feels compelled, for whatever reason, to conclude a deal, get the sale, get the documents signed.
And this isn’t the preserve of business relationships. A sense of ‘need’ is not uncommon in interpersonal relationships – for example, when one partner feels they ‘need’ the other.
All of this is a state of over-motivation. When a person can’t take a step back and soberly evaluate the current situation, their brain starts to see all manner of negative consequences. As a result, they latch onto any bones they are thrown. And who’s throwing these bones? The tough negotiator. You can find any number of examples of this in films depicting the events of the ‘hard nineties’ in Russia and other former Soviet states.
The nineties saw many groups of racketeers approach local businesses to suggest the use of their ‘services’. The majority of businesses would agree on the spot, fearing possible reprisals if they refused. But some strong-willed individuals refused to do business with such groups. That’s where things get interesting for us.
At this point, let’s say one of the gang members says to one such businessman: ‘No problem. You don’t want our help, that’s your business. Just tell us straight: if it’s a no, then it’s a no. Just say the word.’ And then they walk away.
Now, at this point all the businessman can think about are the grimmest possible consequences of his refusal. He’s in a state of fear, of over-motivation. Before long, the businessman comes crawling back to the criminals, the roles now firmly reversed: he is the one persuading them to let him take advantage of their valuable offer. He automatically falls into a dependent role.
This tactic has a 98 per cent success rate. But there are situations in which even this tactic won’t work – namely if the person feels no such sense of fear or ‘need’.
The zone of uncertainty is, nevertheless, a very powerful play, and using it can easily secure some movement in your direction from your opponent.
Let’s imagine a manager is yet again asking his subordinate to stay late after work to finish a project. The subordinate is neither prepared nor willing to work in his free time. Now, at this point many managers would start to threaten the subordinate, barking out a list of orders and acting in a way they consider to be ‘tough’. In fact, this is exactly the sort of behaviour that will provoke further resistance and disloyalty in their colleague.
This is when it’s time to remember the ‘zone of uncertainty’ play. All you need are a couple of phrases: ‘Fine, Ivan, if you don’t want to stay, don’t. I’m sure we’ll manage without you.’ With this, the manager puts those toughest of negotiators – fear and uncertainty – to work in their subordinate’s mind. And believe you me, those two certainly are persuasive.
So now we have seen all five postulates of the Kremlin method. But this method also makes use of what is known as the ‘pendulum of emotions’.
No living person’s emotions can be completely neutral. Our pendulum of emotions is always in a state of flux: even when we are calm, our pendulum will oscillate slightly. And the task of the negotiator using the Kremlin method is to swing the pendulum to its maximum amplitude, so as to more effectively influence our actions and dealings.
Let’s see what happens to our pendulum of emotions during each of these five postulates.
Postulates 1 and 2: the negotiator listens to us and asks us questions. This puts us in a pleasant, even happy frame of mind. The pendulum swings out towards the positive edge of its range.
Postulate 3: we are ‘depreciated’. The pendulum swings in the opposite direction.
After the fourth postulate, once the ‘red carpet’ has been rolled out, our pendulum moves back into the positive. That is where we want it to stay.
If this isn’t enough to seal the deal, then one more step is added – postulate 5.
Under what circumstances is it ethical to use such negotiation methods?
Before we answer this question, let’s evaluate the effectiveness of this method.
How to measure the effectiveness of any negotiating system
A system is evaluated on three points:
1. The negotiation system should, where possible, lead to a reasonable agreement.
2. It should get results effectively.
3. It should improve (or at the very least not worsen) relations between the parties.
On the first and second points there is no doubt that this school of negotiation gets results, and it clearly leads to an agreement.
Which begs the question:
to what extent does the Kremlin method improve relationships?
The answer to this question will also answer our question of ethics. Let’s take a look.
Every coin has its flip side, and I have to examine both.
In theory, the answer should be a resounding no: it worsens them.
The opponent leaves the negotiations feeling happy with the outcome. At that point in time, they genuinely believe that they have found a win–win scenario: both sides have won and they have also met the goals they set out for themselves. After all, they got the contract (letter, sponsorship, etc.). Gains have been made. At some point, however, this person will start to get a feeling I liken to a hangover – when your head starts to clear after a big night, and you realise that something isn’t right, that you’ve done something wrong. Only in this case it’s that something isn’t right, but that someone else has done something wrong to you. This ‘hangover’ feeling can soon begin to grate.
This is one reason why the Kremlin method isn’t always conducive to long-term relationships, which is a major factor to consider in our modern world. Now, if you don’t need long-term relationships – if this is just a one-time negotiation that you want settled here and now – then this method is undoubtedly very effective. But if you have your sights set on long-term communications – even just one more exchange with this party – or if their recommendation is important to you, then this negotiation method is not for you.
That being said, in practice things aren’t always so black and white.
In 2006, when Russia introduced an import ban on Moldovan wines, our company experienced some difficulties. This ban meant that all of the wines in our warehouse would have to be destroyed. And that our regional partners owed us a lot of money for these very wines.
Of course, many of our partners started to speculate on the situation, trying to shift as much of the risk and loss onto us as possible.
Initially we made the decision to write off these debts, in the hope of preserving these relationships and encouraging future business. But then a combination of circumstances made us change tack and toughen our policy. We insisted that our partners accept their share of the risk, and pay what they owed us for the wine that we had had to destroy. With some companies, the matter even went to court.
It is worth noting that, despite us having handled everything in a ‘civilised’ manner, some of the companies from the first list turned their backs on us and stopped working with us. But the very companies that ended up ‘taking a hit’ continued doing business with us, some even more so than before.
Businesses prefer to work with strong, reliable opponents who stand up for themselves. In practice, people respect strong, decisive opponents.
Never sacrifice your own interests to maintain a relationship. That is no marriage of equals. Strategically, you stand to lose both the relationship and your negotiation benefit. Your opponents are most likely simply banking on your desire to ‘do the right thing’.
So where does this get us with the ethics of the Kremlin method?
As with any weapon, this method can be used for good as well as ill. It all depends on your goal. If you use the method in a competitive setting, with no fraudulent intent, then it can be regarded as one of any number of resources. But it’s another matter entirely if the method falls into the arsenal of a not-so-honest negotiator.
For this reason, it can be beneficial to look at how to stand up to negotiators who have near-enough mastered the Kremlin method, while also honing your own methods.
A reminder: developing three basic skills will take you far in the art of negotiation. These three skills will help you to become a true negotiator and leader and to get results. Let’s recap what these are. The first is the ability to defend your interests, i.e. to play the strong lion, see your goal and pursue it. The other two are the ability to manage your emotions and the emotions of your opponent, i.e. to be a circumspect and slightly cunning fox.
BEING THE LION IN PURSUIT OF YOUR INTERESTS
Above all else, defending your interests is knowing how to fight for them. We can draw an analogy between this and physical combat, even war. In fact, negotiation algorithms have much in common with those of military operations, which is why virtually every negotiation method has some grounding in Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, written some 2,500 years ago.
War is a form of combat that plays out through the positioning of bodies and objects in space. It only differs from other forms of combat – wrestling, or a fistfight, say – in the specific equipment used, and in the all too real possibility of inflicting irreversible physical damage on the opposing side. Fistfights lack both the weapons and the irrevocably destructive objectives of war.
However, where negotiations follow the same formulae as physical combat (or war), there is one crucial difference: the final outcome. Where physical combat is about the positioning of bodies in space (the seizure of territory, objects, etc.), negotiation actually boils down to a fight for social roles (boss/subordinate, vendor/buyer, teacher/student, decision-maker/implementer, etc.). As negotiators, it is crucial that we understand who holds what role.
We have already seen one such pair of roles, that of ‘host’ and ‘guest’. These are the most important roles that can be assigned in negotiation. The movement towards these roles begins as soon as the first questions are asked and the first answers given. As noted, it is after these roles are established that a value system is introduced, and one party is put into an undesirable role that they then want to shift. This role can indeed be shifted, but only by a) knowing how to fight for a social role, or b) engaging in combat (dismissing an objectionable dealer, say, getting into a scuffle or even grabbing an object or money). There are no other options.
So what is a role? Roles are an extremely powerful thing. If a negotiator knows how to recognise the roles at play, then they can predict others’ behaviour and use that knowledge to adjust their own – usually with great success. The thing is, if we put a person into one role or another, then sooner or later they will start to move exactly as that role dictates.
This principle was the subject of an audacious experiment in the USA.
The Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)
Wanting to better understand the nature of conflict within the correctional institutions of the United States Navy, the Office of Naval Research agreed to fund an experiment led by behavioural psychologist Philip Zimbardo. Zimbardo fitted out a basement at Stanford University to create a mock prison, and recruited male volunteers who agreed to be assigned a role of ‘prisoner’ or ‘guard’ at random. All volunteers were students at the university, and they received $15 per day (which, with inflation, equates to almost $100 in 2018).
The participants all underwent tests of their physical health and psychological stability prior to the experiment. After this, they were randomly divided into two groups of twelve: ‘guards’ and ‘prisoners’.
The ‘guards’ were given uniforms bought from an army surplus store, which were based on the uniforms of actual prison guards. They were also given wooden batons and mirrored sunglasses, which meant their eyes were impossible to see.
The experiment started with the ‘prisoners’ being sent home. They were then mock-arrested by state police, who assisted with the experiment. The ‘prisoners’ had their fingerprints and mugshots taken, and they were read their rights. After this, they were stripped, searched, and given a number.
In contrast to those of the guards, ‘prisoners’ were given uncomfortable uniforms to be worn without underwear, and rubber slippers. They were addressed only by the number sewed onto their uniform. In addition, they had to wear a small chain around their ankles, intended to serve as a constant reminder of their imprisonment.
The ‘guards’ worked in shifts, although during the experiment many of them were happy to work overtime. Zimbardo himself took on the role of Prison Superintendent.
The experiment was supposed to last four weeks. The ‘guards’ were given a single task: to do the rounds of the prison. Barring the use of physical force towards the ‘prisoners’, they could perform these rounds in any manner they chose.
As early as day two, some ‘prisoners’ had started a revolt, barricading the entrance to their cell with their beds and mocking their overseers. To put an end to the disturbance, ‘guards’ attacked the ‘prisoners’ with fire extinguishers. Before long, the ‘guards’ were forcing their wards to sleep naked on a bare concrete floor, and use of the showers was made a privilege. The sanitary conditions in the prison deteriorated to a shocking degree: ‘prisoners’ were forbidden from using toilets outside of their own cells, instead having to make do with a bucket. Occasionally, as a punishment, ‘guards’ even prohibited the buckets from being emptied.
One-third of the ‘guards’ revealed sadistic tendencies: they bullied the ‘prisoners’, forcing some of them to clean waste tanks with their bare hands. Two of the ‘prisoners’ were so emotionally traumatised that they had to be removed from the experiment. One of the replacement participants was so shocked by the scenes that met him upon arrival that he swiftly started a hunger strike. As punishment, he was locked in a dark closet in lieu of solitary confinement. The other ‘prisoners’ were given a choice: they could either go without blankets or leave the troublemaker in ‘solitary’ all night. Only one person was willing to sacrifice his own comfort for the sake of the other ‘prisoner’.
Roughly fifty observers followed the work of the ‘prison’, but it was only Zimbardo’s girlfriend, who came to interview some of the participants, who voiced alarm at what was happening. Stanford’s ‘prison’ was closed six days after opening its doors. Many guards expressed regret that the experiment had ended sooner than anticipated.
It is hard to overstate the importance of roles. If, in negotiations, we are viewed as one in a long line of others, or if we fall into the role of ‘dependent’, we will immediately start looking for a way out – for example, by suggesting tantalising terms or making concessions. All because we want out of that role. This is exactly why we need to learn how to negotiate.
Returning to our warfare analogy, we can differentiate between two stages of negotiations: manoeuvring and combat.
In On War, Carl von Clausewitz, a prominent nineteenth-century military theorist, wrote, ‘Fighting is a trial of strength of the moral and physical forces by means of the latter.’4
This means that in battle, ‘strength of the moral forces’ – i.e. our strength of spirit – is key. Everything else is secondary: what matters is having the willpower to see you through. When it comes to defending our interests – or playing the lion – our confidence in our own strength will naturally be of great importance. We must have enough strength of spirit to fight for our interests.
So when does combat begin? It begins when both sides have an equal understanding of what they are fighting for, and what is at stake. Let’s take a look at the following situation.
Two years ago, a supermarket chain installed a very cheap security system in their stores. It is constantly breaking down, causing them many headaches. They should probably change it, but how much will that cost? Is it really worth the effort?
A company supplying security systems is aware of these issues, and they are trying to convince the manager’s assistant to change the bad system for their better quality, more expensive one.
The supplier’s sales manager comes to the supermarket’s HQ and launches into negotiations by saying: ‘Maria Stepanova, I know your system is always breaking down. I’d like to propose you replace it with my system, which is both reliable and great quality.’
What sort of response do you think they will get? The answer is fairly predictable: ‘No, we’re fine, thanks, you can show yourself out.’
At the risk of jumping a few steps ahead, I can say that this is exactly why this firm came to me for help.
Essentially, when you reveal your negotiation benefit – what you want to achieve – to the opponent, this marks the start of combat. This is because it is only once the benefit has been pinpointed that bargaining and other ‘uses of force’ can begin.
Combat is the stage of negotiations at which parties fight for a benefit. Both sides clearly understand what having the benefit would mean to them and to the other side. The benefit could be material – a salary, a price, commercial terms, etc. – or it could be completely unrelated to material values: a trip to the cinema, perhaps, or a visit to your mother-in-law at the weekend.
Why couldn’t the security system supplier achieve their goal and sell the equipment?
In my view, the answer to this question is obvious. The sales manager chose the wrong negotiation method. They went into negotiations along that old Napoleonic principle of ‘We’ll engage in battle, and then we’ll see.’5 This is, in fairness, a particularly Russian approach. For some time even I felt it was the right approach to take, but with the benefit of experience, I now insist on replacing Napoleon’s principle with one of Sun Tzu’s: ‘The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.’6 By which I mean that before entering negotiations it is essential to forecast the results.
Here, you need to consider whether you have the three key components of the negotiation process: strength, means and resources.
If your opponent is armed to the teeth but you don’t have so much as a penknife, then negotiating won’t bring you anything good. This is what happened in the example above. It is crucial to learn how to arm yourself for the negotiation process, rather than hoping for a free ride.
This means that, before entering negotiations, you need to make a thorough forecast for success. It is only ever possible to enter negotiations with all guns blazing – i.e. revealing your position and benefit – if you are certain what the outcome of combat will be, if your forecast is positive and if you have all three components of the negotiation process in hand. In any other situation, you need to do some manoeuvring.
Now, manoeuvring shouldn’t be mistaken for a refusal to negotiate. Manoeuvres are simply the process of making preparations, clarifying information, finding reinforcements and more.
Two oligarchs meet. One asks the other: ‘How are things? What’s new?’
‘Oh, we’re in clover. Two months ago I bought a villa in Cyprus for my daughter, then a month ago I bought a fancy three-storey house in central Moscow for my son, then a Merc 600 for myself, my wife and kids . . . So overall, things are good.’
After a three-second pause, he adds: ‘Hey, do me a favour, lend me 500 bucks for a few weeks?’
The other replies: ‘You can kiss my . . . ankle.’
‘Ankle?’
‘Oh, sorry, don’t you like being misdirected? Wouldn’t know how that feels.’
When the security system supplier came to me, the first thing I asked them to do was to make a forecast. And we immediately found the rub. Every single person I asked, from the director down to the sales manager, was making optimistic forecasts. As is often the case in practice, their optimism was well founded: the equipment they were selling was of a high quality, whereas the equipment their potential client had was bad. But this was their fatal error: they were viewing the situation from their perspective, rendering their forecasts completely inadequate.
Basically, their forecasts were like a street cleaner looking up at the royal palace and making plans to marry the princess. He can plan all he wants, but – here’s the catch! – besides his own wishes, he’s got nothing on his side. He is short of the second and third components: resources and means.
A lot rests on the accuracy of these forecasts. They affect how we hold ourselves, how we act and what we plan to do in negotiations. When evaluating possible negotiation outcomes, we must look at the situation not from our own perspective but from that of our opponent. What matters is not how we approach our opponent, but how they view us.
To make an adequate forecast, you must look at the situation – and at yourself – from your opponent’s perspective.
This is how I recommend making a forecast:
Draw up a simple matrix, which I’m going to call the ‘forecast matrix’. This matrix should have two vectors: ‘importance’ and ‘irreplaceability’. These two vectors will serve as a measurable indicator of how our opponent views us.
Prior to negotiations, consider – on a scale of zero to ten – how much your opponent needs you and your goods or services (or how much they need you as a worker/employer, etc.). This will be your rating on the ‘importance’ vector.
You then need to evaluate – once again, on a scale of zero to ten – how hard it would be for your opponent to find a replacement. This will be your rating on the ‘irreplaceability’ vector.
Depending on your ratings, you will fall into one of four categories. This category is how your opponent views you, and you should plan your next steps on this basis.
First, let’s familiarise ourselves with each of these four categories.
Supermarket
Your opponent isn’t interested in you, and you are easily replaced. This is the category that the security systems supplier had fallen into. As a result, it was immediately clear that the forecast was not in their favour. When a person sees their opponent as one of many items on a supermarket shelf – an item they weren’t even looking for in the first place – they will have little interest in the products or services on offer. And, naturally, if you are to engage in combat with that person, i.e. immediately reveal the benefit you seek, there is a high chance that you will very soon be leaving with nothing. What is the point even haggling with you when you are both easily interchangeable (just look at all of those products on the shelf!) and unimportant?
For a forecast like this, I would categorically advise against opening with a fight for your benefit. Here, manoeuvring is key. Focus on strengthening your position. That’s what we did.
First of all, I found an acquaintance who could set up a meeting with the supermarket chain for us. Of course, I could have gone in on my own, but going in on someone else’s recommendation is much more effective.
During the negotiations themselves, I proposed nothing. Instead, posing as a consultant from a company seeking to expand its supply market, I asked the assistant for advice on the manufacturer of the security system they were using. Of course, she started to open up – and reader, let me tell you, it’s been a long time since I’ve heard so many uncomplimentary words. With every complaint she voiced, my position became stronger.
When I felt that my importance to her was at its peak, I went on the offensive.
‘Maria Stepanova, why don’t you change your equipment for a superior system? I mean, I would be happy to do you a quote – if that’s of interest, of course.’
If you’ve fallen into the ‘supermarket’ category, then to all intents and purposes you are simply one of many identical products on the shelf; your opponent might not notice you, or they might not even stop to look at the shelf at all.
If an employee wants to ask for a raise, then before going to the manager, it’s worth them thinking about what category they fall into in their employer’s eyes. If they fall into the ‘supermarket’ category, then what will negotiations actually achieve? Now, I’m not saying that you should ever refuse to negotiate – certainly not. I’m simply saying that what you need is a manoeuvre, one that will either ‘inflate’ your significance (on the ‘importance’ vector), or highlight just how unique you are (on the ‘irreplaceability’ vector). Only after that should you begin to fight for the benefit.
Opportunity
You are pretty unique, but as it stands your opponent has little interest in you. What should you do? Enter combat, or manoeuvre?
Let’s look at an example.
A company producing metal hangars has developed and marketed a hangar with a particular shape that makes it cheaper to construct and maintain than traditional hangars. Having taken its home market by storm, this company now has its sights set on neighbouring markets. Its managers all set out to woo potential buyers, but things don’t quite go to plan. Yes, the hangar is innovative, the potential buyers all agree, but who uses them? None of their potential clients agree to ‘do themselves a favour’ and get on board.
Once again, this was all down to an inaccurate forecast. Because they had marketed an innovative solution, these innovators assumed they would automatically fall into the ‘opportunity’ category, which is to say they gave themselves a high rating on the ‘irreplaceability’ vector and decided that that would be enough for success. However, they didn’t take into account the fact that, no matter how unique they were, in their prospective partners’ eyes they simply weren’t important.
Hence it follows that this category also demands an initial manoeuvre. First you need to create value for your potential clients, then you can outline your benefit.
Here I should note:
Value is something your opponent is willing to pay you for.
I would advise a company like this to build a demo hangar, which would serve as a first important step: it ensures the market has at least heard of them.
Lever
By its very name, this category implies there may be pressure on you. If there is interest in what you have to offer but you face a lot of competition, then I recommend boldly stepping into negotiations and revealing your benefit.
‘What, straight into combat, without any manoeuvring?’ you might ask. This I can understand: to all appearances, this category hardly differs from ‘opportunity’. Only the vector has changed: here, rather than ‘irreplaceability’, the high rating is for ‘importance’. However, the two do differ in quite marked ways.
While prior preparation for negotiations is still essential, in this category there is some room for bargaining off the bat. Naturally, your opponent will try to put pressure on you by emphasising that there are other options available to them, they have companies queueing up to work with them and the like. But if you prepare your negotiations and arm yourself well (we’ll look at techniques, plays and negotiation preparations in more detail later), then success awaits. In this category, you have all three components of success in your hands.
Once again, I would like to note that combat is not a ‘tough’ position: it is simply the stage of negotiations that begins when both parties understand the benefit the other side seeks. The negotiations themselves can be as tough or as gentle as you want: that is down to you and your opponent.
If you’re a valued employee who meets targets and whom the company has an interest in retaining, you can boldly ask for a raise. Your employer will negotiate with you, whether they have a potential replacement for you or not. This is in contrast to the previous two categories, where there was no scope for bargaining.
Partner
There is interest in you, and you are hard to replace.
Now, in this category it might appear that success is in the bag, but you can’t relax just yet. Yes, go into combat; yes, go out there with all guns blazing to declare your benefit. But be careful: your opponent won’t be dozing. For purchasing agents, for example, suppliers who fall into this category are a big danger. Managers of ‘stars’ face this headache all the time. This is because once we reach the top right-hand corner of the matrix, we often start behaving not as a partner but as a counter-lever. We lean in to our position, throw our weight around more.
You can be certain that the other party – be they a purchasing agent or an employer – will always be on the lookout for a replacement. So you need to be aware that even if you’ve won the battle, you can still lose the war. Don’t forget the relationship aspect of negotiations; here it’s more important than ever.
And so we can see that, even in this category, it is practically impossible to get by without some form of manoeuvring. Yes, go into combat; yes, reveal your benefit, but in later negotiations you will need to manoeuvre to encourage trust in you. And for this, you need to foster the three most important components of trusting relationships. They are:
1. Attentiveness to the opponent and their values.
2. An ability to listen.
3. Professionalism.
At the start of the 2000s, we were supplied by a well-known factory in Moldova. In the early days our partner made every effort to accommodate our wishes, and we grew together. Supply volumes continued to increase, and by the mid-2000s these were quite considerable (around seven million bottles per year). At this point our partner, realising how dependent we were on them, started imposing their own rules. They introduced unfounded price increases of quite a significant margin, as well as minimum sample sizes. As a result, we started to lose trust in them, and, naturally enough, we made the strategic decision to transfer 30 per cent of our supply to another producer. Our new producer was, of course, delighted with the situation. And our old partner very quickly started fussing over us and making their excuses. But it was already too late.
If you fall into the ‘supermarket’ or ‘opportunity’ category, forget combat for a while and focus on manoeuvres. Combat (bargaining) is possible only when your opponent feels you are important.
Before beginning negotiations, make sure you possess the three most important negotiation components: strength, means and resources.
Make a forecast using the forecast matrix, and only then decide whether to make a manoeuvre (arm yourself and improve your position) or to head straight into combat. When it comes to building your strength and arming yourself, I would recommend studying the Chinese stratagems. Several of them feature in this book. You will remember, under the fourth postulate of the Kremlin school of negotiation (rolling out the red carpet) was the stratagem ‘Show your enemy there is a road to life’. For the negotiations on security systems, I drew on the following stratagem:
Fool the emperor and cross the sea
Once the emperor had marched his 300,000 troops as far as the sea, he began to lose heart. All that lay before them was water, endless water. Their enemies’ kingdom, Goguryeo, was 1,000 li away. How would they get there? Why hadn’t he listened to his advisers when they had warned him against this campaign? Embarrassed, he turned to his commanders for advice. They requested some time to think. The commanders feared that the emperor might cancel the campaign, so they appealed to the artful general Xue Rengui for advice.
The general said: ‘What if the emperor could cross the sea like dry land?’
The commanders nodded – that would be good.
Then he told them that no one should look at the sea until the next day.
Xue Rengui prepared everything.
The next day, the emperor’s officers told him that a rich farmer who lived by the water’s edge wanted to offer the troops provisions for the crossing. He had invited the emperor to his home to discuss the matter. The emperor, feeling his mood picking up, set out towards the sea with his retinue. He himself couldn’t see the sea, however: 10,000 skilfully placed fabric panels (usually used for tents) obscured his entire field of vision. The rich farmer respectfully invited the emperor into his home. The walls were decked out with expensive curtains, and rugs covered the floor. The emperor and his companions sat down and started to drink wine.
After a short while, the emperor thought he could hear the whistling of the wind all around him, and the pounding of waves rang in his ears like thunder. The goblets and lamps in the room all started to sway and shake. Surprised, the emperor ordered one of his servants to pull back the curtain. His gaze fell upon the endless dark sea.
‘Where are we?’ he asked uneasily.
‘The entire army is crossing the sea to Goguryeo,’ one of his advisers explained.
Faced with this fait accompli, the emperor’s determination grew. Now it was with courage that he travelled east.
RECOGNISING YOUR OPPONENT’S BEHAVIOUR: FOUR BEHAVIOUR TYPES, FROM THE ‘TEENAGER’ TO THE ‘TANK’
And so, we have now outlined the two stages of negotiation: combat and manoeuvring. Let’s take a closer look at the combat stage – the fight for your goal.
In combat, the most important thing to rely on is your strength of spirit. Quite simply, whoever’s is greater will win. Let’s remind ourselves of von Clausewitz’s much-cited definition of fighting: ‘Fighting is a trial of strength of the moral and physical forces by means of the latter.’7
In negotiation, ‘fighting’ is the stage at which we fight for gains. This stage only comes into play when certain conditions are present:
1. There is a clash of interests.
2. Both sides clearly understand what benefit they seek as well as that of the opposing party.
3. Both sides want to gain said benefit.
This is precisely where strength of will can play a decisive role. Why? Because this is where the moral forces of the two sides go head to head. Whoever’s is greater will win. You must be ready for this. In other words, you must constantly train and hone your willpower. As Napoleon once said, ‘The moral is to the physical as three is to one.’
Let’s take a look at the four behaviour models of people in combat – how people behave when fighting for their benefit and defending their interests.
Before getting into this, it should be noted that these behaviour models must be viewed along two vectors. The first vector is ‘motivation’ (to achieve a result). This is equal parts self-confidence and belief in one’s cause. The second is ‘courteousness’.
Confidence is an important factor in combat. The outcome often boils down to which of the negotiators is more motivated. As for courteousness, it is worth taking a closer look at what this means in this context. Nowadays, many associate the word ‘courtesy’ with ‘compliance’. This is wrong. Courteousness means treating people properly, behaving appropriately, using socially acceptable language and other similar concepts – none of which is synonymous with compliance.
So these are our two vectors – confidence (results-oriented motivation) and courteousness. It is through these two criteria that we will explore the four possible behaviour models adopted when defending one’s interests.
If necessary, can we disregard the ‘courteousness’ vector in negotiations?
Remember your response – at the end of this section we will come back to this critical question.
Before examining each of the behaviour models, I would like to emphasise that these are completely unrelated to any typology of personality. This is simply a model of the behaviour an individual adopts when fighting for their goal. In essence, each and every one of us has it within us to behave according to any one of these models, based on the circumstances at hand.
The teenager
This behaviour model is normally presented by people who lack confidence (i.e. have little motivation) and are discourteous to boot. Aggressive attacks on weaker parties are generally typical of this model. ‘Teenagers’ are quick to make things personal, and often speak very informally, using this as a means of projecting confidence in themselves and the rest of the world. However, this aggressive behaviour is in fact a mask for their own insecurity. Sound like a teenager to you?
Once I saw a woman get onto a trolleybus with her child, who looked about nine or ten. The woman bought a ticket for herself, but the child ducked under the barrier. Nothing too unusual there. But then things took a much more unusual turn.
A ticket inspector walked up to the woman and demanded that she show a valid ticket for both her and her child. The woman openly admitted to only having one. With that, the inspector’s facial expression instantly changed, and, with no regard for anyone else on the trolleybus, he started rudely and disrespectfully demanding that she pay a fine. The woman handed him the money without argument.
‘So what, you’re trying to bribe me now?’ he shouted, before grabbing hold of her things and trying to pull her off the trolleybus.
At this point I stepped in. I walked up to the inspector and said, ‘Excuse me, why are you behaving like this?’ Of course, he then tried to channel all his anger onto me. But as soon as he saw that I was emotionally stronger than him, he stepped aside and listened to what I had to say. I explained to him that what he was doing was actually against the law, and then ran through the possible consequences of his actions.
And what do you think his reaction was? He turned tail and ran! Literally – he even forgot all about his offender, and he didn’t take her fine.
For me, this is one of the simplest and clearest examples of the behaviour of someone who lacks both confidence and courteousness.
If you encounter a ‘teenager’, it is important to show them that you are emotionally stronger than they are. When they sense your strength, they will be forced to change their negotiation strategy and stop their provocations. One way of demonstrating your strength is to look your opponent straight in the eye and pause for a few seconds. Your response needs to be firm and confident, so that your opponent understands that the power is on your side. Under no circumstances whatsoever should you mimic their behaviour. Meeting boorishness with boorishness will simply turn you into a ‘teenager’ too: your motivation will drop, and the only thing to be gained from that discussion will be you letting off steam.
Buddha and his followers were once passing through a village in which his enemies lived. The villagers came rushing out of their homes, surrounded Buddha and his followers and started hurling abuse at them. Buddha’s followers started to get annoyed. Were it not for Buddha’s calming presence, they would have been ready to give as good as they got.
Then Buddha turned around and said something that stunned both his followers and the villagers.
‘You disappoint me. These people are simply going about their business. They are incensed: they believe I’m an enemy to their religion, to their values. So it is natural for them to be shouting insults. But why are you getting angry? Why are you letting these people manipulate you? You are letting them control you. Are you not free?’
The villagers hadn’t expected such a reaction. Baffled, they fell silent. Now Buddha turned to them.
‘Have you said all that you wanted to say? If not, then you will have another chance to get it all off your chests when we return.’
The villagers were completely confounded. One of them said, ‘But we were shouting insults at you! Why aren’t you angry?’
‘You’re free people, and you have every right to do what you did. But I will not react to it. I am also a free person. Nothing can force me to react, and no one can affect or manipulate me. I am the master of my own manifestations, and my actions are born of my inner state. But I would like to ask you a question. The people in the village next to yours welcomed me; they brought me flowers, fruits and sweets. I thanked them, but told them that we had already eaten. I told them to take the fruits back to their homes with my blessing: we couldn’t take them with us as we do not carry food. Now let me ask you: what should they do with what I didn’t accept from them – what I returned?’
One man from the crowd said, ‘They probably took the gifts home and shared them with their children and families.’
Buddha smiled.
‘So what will you do with your insults and abuse? I do not accept them. If I refuse to take those fruits and sweets, the giver has to take them back. So what can you do? I reject your insults, so you too can carry your burden back to your homes and do with it whatever you please.’
If you cross paths with a ‘teenager’, make sure you keep your aim at the front of your mind. People in this state will often reveal their inner Porthos, and simply fight for the sake of fighting. They have no motivation to achieve anything in these negotiations, no benefit in their sights. So you should remember the words of Winston Churchill: ‘You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks.’
I once ran a workshop in Tula. I arrived in the city early, and went to park my car by my hotel, where the workshop was also going to take place. The parking lot was empty, so I parked my car in the first spot I liked.
No sooner had I got out of the car than an attendant came up to me and gruffly told me to move my car, as that particular spot was for the bank. Now, where my first instinct would typically be to answer back and start a bickering match with him, it’s important to remember your priorities. At the time, all I wanted to do was to park my car, check into the hotel and get ready for the workshop.
‘Fine, I’ll move it. Where should I park?’
‘The hotel spaces are numbers 101–108.’
‘Thank you.’
And that’s where my story with the parking attendant ends. However, I was to revisit this encounter very soon afterwards, when this very topic came up in the workshop. One young man jumped out of his seat and angrily said, ‘Yes, I had to deal with that jerk this morning! I gave him a piece of my mind.’
I was interested to dig a bit deeper into this situation.
‘And where did you end up parking your car?’
‘Two blocks away.’
‘So let’s see: your car’s parked further away, and you’ve spent half the day in a bad mood. And that rude parking attendant, how do you think he feels?’
Silence.
‘Were you able to mend his ways?’
‘No.’
Don’t try to re-educate people or moralise with them. You’ll either lose sight of your benefit, or turn into a ‘teenager’ yourself.
There is, however, another way of dealing with a ‘teenager’: find a third party who is better able to negotiate and who has a vested interest in the result.
A young man worked as a buyer for one of our distribution networks. Having modelled a tough manner from his older colleagues, but not fully grasping the nuance of when and how to use this ‘toughness’, he earned himself the reputation of an incompetent jerk. Which, I have to say, he was. No matter what a supplier proposed, he would bluntly and rudely refuse them, taking great pleasure in the power he wielded. He would drive young women to hysterics, and men almost to fisticuffs. But what’s most interesting is that no one tried to go straight to his line manager. We, however, did just that. As a result of these negotiations, we got the contract, and a week later that particular ‘teenager’ was throwing his weight around the job centre instead.
It’s always worth seeking out someone who has a greater interest than the ‘teenager’ in seeing an issue resolved.
There’s no point getting into a showdown with a jerk on a plane: much better to call in a specially trained, interested party. And the best way of not having to negotiate with an indifferent jerk is to go straight to their manager.
If you encounter ‘teenage’ behaviour, under no circumstances should you fight fire with fire. Always keep your goal in mind, and let the circumstances guide you:
1. Make a one-time show of strength.
2. Ignore their behaviour and stand your ground.
3. Check if you would be better off speaking to someone else.
4. The ‘red carpet’ and ‘zone of uncertainty’ can also be used to good effect here.
The mouse
These are people who value courteousness, but who lack confidence (low results-oriented motivation). This behaviour model is the least successful when it comes to fighting for the goal. Why? Because people who fall back on this model tend to concede everything to everyone. But that’s not all – not only do they make unnecessary concessions, they make excuses for doing so: ‘I’m a nice person – it’s just so easy to hurt me!’
When does a negotiator turn into a ‘mouse’? When they lack confidence in their cause; when they are unsure of their own position. If this person values courteousness they will become a ‘mouse’; if not, ‘teenagerhood’ awaits.
I am often asked questions like: ‘How can I sell something I don’t completely believe in?’ or ‘How can I change a supplier’s terms if I find the new ones unfair?’ I get thousands of questions like these. The answer is simple: sell it to yourself first. Find the strength of your position. Regardless of what the situation is, it is crucial to convince yourself first, and only then go into negotiations.
A manager gives his subordinate an assignment: ‘Go and tell the client that if they don’t pay us today, we won’t do business with them any more.’ His subordinate nods in response. The negotiations go as follows:
‘I’m asking you, please pay us. We need the money by tomorrow.’
‘No, that’s not going to happen.’
‘Well, my manager said that if we don’t have the money . . . You know, it’ll be hard for me to get him to authorise future deliveries.’
‘So what, you don’t need clients? We get lots of offers like yours. And you keep on making all these demands.’
‘I’m asking, not demanding. I would really like to keep our relationship, but—’
‘Then go tell that to your crazy boss.’
Not only did the negotiator not defend his own interests, he also conceded his benefit, lost face in front of his opponent and threw his manager under the bus. So who is to blame here, and what can be done? Both are to blame: both the manager who didn’t see his subordinate’s lack of confidence, and the employee who couldn’t justify his position and so started delicate negotiations in the position of a ‘mouse’. As for what can be done: proper negotiation preparation, which in this case is finding solid ground to stand on.
Under no circumstances should you enter negotiations if you don’t truly believe in your cause. When a negotiator doesn’t believe in the strength of their own position, they are doomed to failure.
If this sort of behaviour feels like your default, then now’s the time to be honest with yourself. It’s important to acknowledge that this model simply leads to you making excuses for your own failings and not seeing your own areas for growth.
This isn’t the only shortcoming of the ‘mouse’ behaviour model. The second is compliance. A negotiator like the one in the example will almost always be forced away from their initial plans and make concessions. Of course, an almost new, well-kept car is always going to be easier to sell than a rusty piece of scrap metal. But, as you’ll see later, even the latter has USPs to be found.
Once I witnessed negotiations being held in the office of the chief engineer (CE) of a construction holding. A contractor had sent a representative (CR) in for negotiations.
CE: So, what do you want?
CR: Well, I’m sorry, but we have . . .
CE: What’s all this mumbling? Are you as bad at building as you are at talking?
CR: Oh, no . . . We would like to review these deadlines. I would very much like to find a mutually beneficial outcome here.
CE: What are you trying to tell me? Nothing changes. But now I’m starting to think maybe it isn’t worth continuing this project with you.
CR: Wait! Well, if you can’t agree to these terms, we’ll do all we can to meet the old ones.
CE: Yes, you do that. Oh, and I’d like you to do something else for me, too.
CR: Yes, of course, we value your business.
The following anecdote nicely encapsulates where trying to please everyone can often get you.
A father, his son and a donkey are travelling along a dusty city road in the sweltering midday heat. The father is riding the donkey, and the son is leading it by the bridle.
‘Poor boy,’ says a passer-by, ‘his little legs can barely keep up! How can you just laze around on that donkey when your son is clearly exhausted?’
The father takes this man’s words to heart. As soon as they turn the corner, he gets off the donkey and makes his son ride it.
Very soon, another person passes them and loudly announces: ‘Has he no shame? The little one riding the donkey like a sultan, while his poor old father’s left trailing behind!’
These words pain the boy, so he asks his father to sit on the donkey behind him.
‘Good people, have you ever seen such a thing?’ a woman in a hijab starts to cry. ‘Tormenting an animal so! The poor donkey’s back is practically breaking from the weight, while these idlers simply lounge around. Poor, unhappy creature!’
Without a word, father and son get down from the donkey, shamefaced.
They have hardly made it a couple of steps when an acquaintance of theirs comes up to them and starts ridiculing them:
Why are you just walking that donkey around town? It’s not carrying anything, and neither of you is riding it!’
The father shoves a big handful of straw into the donkey’s mouth and puts his arm around his son’s shoulder.
‘No matter what we do,’ he says, ‘there’ll always be someone who disagrees. From now on I think it’s best we decide how to travel for ourselves.’
We can see that it’s impossible to please everyone all the time. So not only is it important to know how to keep your eyes on your goal, it’s also important to know how to assert yourself. Courteousness alone just isn’t going to cut it. Confidence in the position you hold is key. Take heed of the old rule of thumb of any good lawyer:
If you’re right, act, and if you’re wrong, you simply haven’t put enough time into crafting your argument.
If you can’t find a reason to believe in your position, then you need to admit what you’ve got wrong. That will be your strength.
Now, for a bit of light relief, here’s an advert I took the trouble of re-writing in full (maintaining the style and spelling of the original):
For sale:
Volga GAZ-3110, 2005.
Mileage 75,000–79,999km, 2.4l, petrol, sedan, colour: black
I’m selling my Volga! To be honest, it’s a dubious buy, but then the price is purely symbolic. For just 30,000 roubles, this cruiser could be yours! A 2005 model, its condition is, shall we say, contradictory. It’s got 72,000km on the clock, but by that you should read 172,000. Or, to be completely honest, 272,000. For the life of me, I’ll never understand how it could have covered such a distance . . .
But the important thing is that the machine’s still on the move! Getting around town’s no problem (except that, without AC, in summer the car feels like it’s on fire). It tears off from traffic lights faster than many foreign cars (especially when they don’t realise they’re drag racing). Tip-top on the roads too. The only limit to the speed you can get her to is your own self-preservation instinct. Personally, on those rare occasions when I’ve got her up to 180km/h, I’ve found myself staring wide-eyed, not moving, hardly even breathing.
There’s a broken part by the left-hand door. This really helps you to find the car in big parking lots, and it gives the beast a distinctiveness you won’t find anywhere else. The body features a couple of parts that you could consider to be in good condition.
The saloon’s internal trimmings are made of some incomprehensible linoleum-based whim. You’ll just have to live with that. On the back of the driving seat there’s this really sharp thing that kills when it randomly digs into the base of your spine. I’ve never figured out what it is, why it’s there or how it could even have come into being.
There’s an air-conditioning button, but that’s the only part of the air conditioning that’s made it this far. There’s also an on-board computer, and I suspect this artificial intelligence (and not you) is what really dictates when the engine starts and when it dies.
The heater – the flame of Sauron itself – works in winter, so no need for Mum to be sad. But unfortunately the hot air points downwards, and when the heating’s off in summer, if you drive at more than 110km/h in sandals then it’ll really burn the toes on your right foot. So in summer it’s best to wear a trainer on that foot.
I haven’t smoked in the car for the last month and a half. Before then I did. A lot. But no more than the car’s previous owner and his many friends, who would all pile in and smoke together, in winter, with the windows closed. The uncharacteristically grey colour of the ceiling means there’s no hiding that.
One big plus: the muffler’s gone, so the beast roars like a demon! It sends even super manly bikers running and keeps them at a distance, offering you a more comfortable drive.
But one of the biggest plusses of this car is that highway patrol categorically do not want to stop you. Even if you pass straight in front of them with your seatbelt unfastened and your lights off, all they’ll do is watch you go with a pitying look. What that’s all about I’ve never been able to guess. Plus, expensive (and less so) cars are really afraid of cutting into your lane.
At times this gives you the feeling of being in a presidential cortège – until that sharp metal thing in your backside brings you back down to earth.
And so, dear reader, how do you think the seller got on with finding a buyer? The price, of course, was purely symbolic, but we’re not talking petty cash. Thirty thousand roubles for the pleasure of driving some scrap metal to the dump?
For your information: the car was sold the very day this advert was posted.
Read the following scenario and consider Mikhail and Ivan’s reasoning. Who was right?
A family acquires a plot of land. They build a small house, which they plan to use as a holiday home in summer. However, in the spring they discover that water accumulates on the plot and drains poorly. Ivan, joint-owner, finds a contractor online who agrees to fix the problem.
Mikhail, the contractor, diligently measures and calculates everything before giving Ivan a quote. Ivan is happy with the quote, which is 200,000 roubles for the work and materials. Ivan pays an advance of 140,000 roubles, and Mikhail gets to work.
Once a week, Mikhail calls Ivan to discuss his progress. In some of these calls, Mikhail mentions that new details have come to light, but says that the issue can still be resolved.
The work is completed, and the day of reckoning arrives. Mikhail informs Ivan that he owes him another 160,000 roubles. Ivan is confused: they have a verbal agreement and a contract stating that the remaining balance due is only 60,000 roubles. Mikhail argues that there were issues with the land, that the job was more complicated than expected and that additional materials were required. When Ivan asks Mikhail why he didn’t ask for his approval, Mikhail simply shrugs and replies that it goes without saying.
Email me your answers at igor@ryzov.ru, and I will make sure to get back to you.
And so, we have now seen how not to fall into the position of ‘mouse’. But, given the type’s weaknesses, would you be happy to come up against a ‘mouse’ in negotiations? Let’s see. Here, the golden rule is this: tempting though it may be, don’t try to take everything from them. Having promised you the world, chances are that the ‘mouse’ will hide away and no longer negotiate with you. Which means you’re still left without your goal.
Let’s come back to the example we looked at above, of the negotiations between the chief engineer and the contractor’s representative. Delighting in his own inflexibility, the chief engineer considers himself the victor, when he is actually leading himself and his organisation to losses. He enjoyed his power, but gained no benefits.
You see, although the contractor made promises, do you think they’ll actually follow through? I can assure you, you can find thousands of reasons and pretexts as to why a deadline might be moved. What’s more, the negotiator who couldn’t defend his interests is more likely to relay the results of the negotiations to his manager in the following way: ‘He wasn’t going to listen to us; he started threatening to break off all business.’
People are inclined to justify their own behaviour; he’s hardly going to tell himself the truth – that he couldn’t convey their position to the customer. And the manager (who, being only human, is no stranger to emotions) might, in the heat of the moment, decide that if the customer won’t meet them halfway, then they’ll just play it by ear and see what happens.
If a negotiator is behaving like a ‘mouse’, there’s no point putting pressure on them and taking everything. Show them there is a road to life (as already described) and roll out the red carpet. They will happily walk down it.
How might the chief engineer have conducted discussions, based on the strategy ‘Show your enemy there is a road to life’?
1. If you (or your representative) don’t trust the strength of your position, then under no circumstances should you start negotiations. It is important to find something you can base your arguments on; where the strength of your position lies.
2. If you can’t find a good argument for your position, then you need to admit what you’ve got wrong. That will become your strength.
3. If you come up against a ‘mouse’, don’t try to take all you can from them. Use the ‘road to life’ play; give them a way of leaving the negotiations with their dignity intact. The red carpet play would also work here.
The tank
This is a very common behaviour model, and it’s pretty self-explanatory: the ‘tank’ is a confident person, but not a courteous one. Our society often approves of this behaviour, and as a result tank-ish behaviour is precisely what many strive for. So what sort of behaviour are we talking about? Well, a ‘tank’ is typically guided by their interests and their interests alone. Others’ interests mean absolutely nothing.
But there’s no hiding it, ‘tanks’ do achieve great success in life, and negotiation, of course, is no exception. So it should come as no surprise that this behaviour model is often used in negotiation. More than that, it’s often very successful. It doesn’t even stand comparison to the ‘mouse’: the latter comes out far too unfavourably, and the success of ‘tank’-style negotiators is exaggerated even more in contrast.
However, there is one serious downside to this model: it is angled towards instant results, not on aligning strategic relationships.
The executives of a supplier (S) and client (C) have come to an agreement regarding the rollout of a new accounting system. The deadlines and budgets for the project have been set out, but the functionality required (the scope of the work) has yet to be finalised.
A deadline is approaching, and S asks C to review the schedule, to which C replies: ‘We’re sick of this! First you start the work, and only then do you start your grumbling.’
S: But listen, we just want to update our agreement.
C: You’re just swindlers and frauds.
S: Wait, what are you suggesting?
C: Well, that’s how you’re behaving – that’s your style of work!
S: But we’re just trying to—
C: YOU! YOU’RE TRYING? Don’t make me laugh, you gold-diggers!
The client in this example is behaving like an archetypal ‘tank’. It’s all about them. Nothing else matters.
What can you do when you meet a ‘tank’?
An experienced negotiator will say: even a ‘tank’ gets their comeuppance every now and then. There are three strategies for dealing with a negotiator who has adopted this apparently fail-safe behaviour model.
1. The ‘two dogs’ strategy. You have to prove that you’re stronger.
2. Don’t encourage your opponent’s behaviour. Meet toughness with softness and in doing so disorient them.
3. Use a burst of ‘breakthrough force’ at the right moment. If you’re being pulled into a whirlpool, don’t flounder and tire yourself out: gather strength, and then give a strong burst of kicking.
When choosing your strategy, it is essential to first evaluate which of you is the stronger party. Here it is very important to make a sober evaluation of your strengths and potential and an adequate forecast of the outcome of the fight. If you are stronger, then it is entirely possible that if you enter combat using the ‘two dogs’ strategy, you will come out on top.
An audience member once told me the following story.
He had recently acquired a plot of land near Moscow with an area of 1,712m2. Before making the deal, the sales manager at the vendor company, Marina, sent him a site plan for the plot, on which it was stated that the total land area was 1,701m2. When questioned about the inconsistency in the figures, Marina assured him that the figure on the plan was a mistake, that they would correct it and that everything would be fine.
My audience member checked every single one of the sales documents to ensure the correct figure was given throughout. Having done that, he felt comfortable signing the contract, and the documents were sent for registration. Marina assured him that he would have the correct plan within a week.
A week later, after following up on the as-yet-unsent documents, he got a ‘What’s the hurry?’ in reply. He grinned and bore this none-too-courteous response. Ten days later, the plan arrived in the post. When he opened it, there it was again: 1,701m2.
Back to the negotiating table. His phone call to Marina went like this:
‘Marina, I’ve been sent the old plan again.’
‘And? It’s a simple mistake.’
‘Marina, do you understand how this looks?’
‘Hey, why are you getting so stressed out? Like I said, it was a simple mistake.’
‘Marina, when will I get the correct plan?’
‘Our specialist is off sick at the moment, but once he’s better we’ll send it to you.’
‘OK, please put me through to your manager.’
‘He isn’t going to speak to you.’
