R

 

Rant 'n' Rave Negotiating Style

 

A negotiator may act crazy or irrationally and make a big scene. Sometimes the other side will give in to their demands simply to get the crazy person to stop doing what they are doing. See Emotional Outbursts.

 

Reactance Technique

 

Using reverse psychology to get someone to agree to move from a firm position. This technique is based upon the human need to assert one’s individual freedom when it is challenged. A negotiator achieves the desired ‘reaction’ from the other party by paraphrasing their negotiating position in a way that makes it sound more extreme that it actually is; then inferring that they do not personally have the power to change their position. This negotiating approach sometimes results in a compromised position. The other party needs to prove they have the power to modify their position and that their position is not ‘fixed in stone.’ See Boomerang Effect.

 

Rapport

 

"When the parties to a negotiation establish a climate of trust, mutual understanding, and friendship. With rapport generally comes a willingness to share information. Via this information sharing process more creative agreements are developed."

 

Re-Anchor Technique

 

"Once the other party establishes an offer, or anchor point, it is wise to immediately make a counter offer. This minimizes the importance of the initial anchor point. This also signals your desire to negotiate in that you not accept the initial offer. Do not adjust your BANTA or target based on this initial anchor. Instead focus on what information you have that might shed light on the other party’s BANTA or desired target."

 

Reciprocal Logrolling

 

Two parties to a negotiation exchanging concessions. See Circular Logrolling.

 

Reciprocity

 

"Making similar or like exchanges of information, concessions, introductions, money, or something else of value that are given by one party to another party. Think of: ‘Tit-for-Tat,’ or ‘You scratch my back and I’ll scratch your back,’ ‘I did this for you now you owe me.’ In general we feel obligated to return in kind what others have offered or given to us. "

 

Red Herring

 

"A deliberate attempt to change a negotiating point, divert an argument, mislead the other side, or leave a false trail."

 

Reinforcement Principle

 

"Negotiators can use reinforcement to shape the behavior of the party they are negotiating with. Reinforce behavior immediately after it occurs—don’t delay reinforcement. Withhold reinforcement from any behavior you do not want the other side to use—just don’t respond. Forms of social reinforcement are simple, nonverbal gestures such as nodding, smiling, and eye contact. More direct reinforcements are statements such as: “I like that.” “This could work.” “That is interesting.”

 

Rejection/Retreat Tactic

 

"A negotiator starts off the negotiation by asking for a very large concession or favor from the other party – one that the other party is almost certain to refuse. When the request is refused, the negotiator makes a much smaller request, which was the option they wanted all along. Begin negotiations with high aspirations. A high aspiration creates a contrast effect so that the other party views any following request that is less extreme to be more reasonable. See Aspiration Level and Make An Offer Then Must Refuse."

 

Renegotiation

 

"Once agreement has been reached, time, performance, and environment become critical components impacting the agreement. Negotiators must continually review agreements in light of what has happened since the agreement was struck. As time passes, performance progresses, and the environment in which the agreement was originally made changes, so should the agreement. This is the time to renegotiate the agreement to bring it back into balance with the original intent. "

 

Reservation Price

 

The price that is the least favorable point at which one will accept a negotiated agreement. For a seller it is the least amount they would be willing to accept. For a buyer it is the maximum amount they would be willing to pay. Also known as the ‘walk away’ point in the negotiation.

 

Reservation Zone

 

The final agreement will fall somewhere between each party’s reservation point. See ZOPA

 

Reverse Auction

 

Set up sellers or buyers to compete against one another. In a reverse auction most participants can see the latest price they need to beat. Today many companies use Internet based reverse auctions.

 

Reverse Golden Rule

 

"In negotiation it is wise to ask yourself, “How would I feel if the other party did this to me?” If you conclude that you would not like it, it means the behavior in question may be regarded as unethical."

 

S

 

Salami Tactics

 

"Also sometimes referred to as the ‘salami-slice strategy.’ Much like the ‘Divide and Conquer’ process. Uses threats and alliances to overcome opposition. Using this tactic, an aggressive negotiator can eventually politically dominate the entire negotiation, piece by piece. In this fashion, the ‘salami’ is taken in ‘Slices’ until the other side realizes (too late) that it is gone in its entirety. In political negotiations it includes the creation of several factions within the opposing political party and then dismantling that party from the inside, without causing the ‘Sliced’ sides to protest. In business negotiations this tactic is used to present problems or solutions in pieces so it is hard for the other side to get the big picture. See ‘Scrambled Eggs.”"

 

Saving Face

 

"Face is the value a person places on his or her public image, reputation, and status relative to other people involved in the negotiation. Direct threats to face in a negotiation include making ultimatums, criticism, challenges, and insults. When negotiating in a group environment (i.e. there is an audience), ‘saving face’ often becomes very important to a negotiator. This can result in the negotiator moving away from any cooperative efforts into competition to protect their position. Often an impasse or lose-lose outcome in the result. Saving face is an important cultural component in may negotiations."

 

Schmoozing

 

"Small talk, the development of personal, social connections unrelated to the negotiation. This results in better rapport, trust, and friendship with the other person. Non-task related contact with others involved in the negotiation helps establish stronger relationships which in turn has a positive effect on the negotiation process and builds a foundation for future negotiations. Research shows that schmoozing results in more profitable business as compared to deals when people simply get down to business. Parties are less likely to reach an impasse, more alternatives are created, and the parties become more optimistic about future work together. Schmoozing is a wise investment in the relationship that can pay off big."

 

Scrambled Eggs Tactic

 

In business negotiations this tactic is used to present problems or solutions in pieces so it is hard for the other side to get the big picture. See ‘Salami Tactics.’

 

Settlement Range

 

The space between the buyer’s estimate of the seller’s minimum and the seller’s estimate of the buyer’s maximum. See BATNA

 

Share Bargaining

 

All negotiations reach a point where the gains of one party are won at the loss of the other. This rationing process is called share bargaining.

 

Shared Enemy

 

Having a shared enemy or a shared problem can unite people and build trust. Having a common goal or a common problem dilutes the perception that the interests of the parties are completely opposed and helps establish a higher-level relationship between the parties that motivates them to agree rather than disagree.

 

Shills

 

"This is someone who works for one side of the negotiation and is used to artificially stimulate interest, support a price, create competition, to test a low offer, or to demonstrate demand and interest. The other side is not aware of the Shill’s function and they use this false information and observations of the Shill’s actions to modify their negotiating approach."

 

Shut Up Rule

 

"When you make an offer, take a position, express an opinion, or ask for something the next thing you should do is 'Shut Up.' It is human nature to expect a reaction, but if the other party remains silent, there is a tendency to offer more information, make a concession, or fill in the void the silence makes by talking more. This permits the silent participant to discover more information, and understand more of the other party's negotiating strategy or negotiating parameters without revealing information regarding their position."

 

Side Deals

 

"Sometimes side deals can increase the size of the pie for negotiators. Multi-party, multi-issue negotiations provide opportunities for side deals between various participants that act to create new value or resolve issues that pose threats to the main agreement. "

 

Silence

 

"We all like responses (either verbal or non-verbal) when we make an offer. We take a position, express an opinion, or ask for something we expect a reaction. If the other party remains silent, there is a tendency to offer more information, make a concession, or fill in the void the silence makes by talking more. This permits the silent participant to discover more information, and understand more of the other party's negotiating strategy or negotiating parameters without revealing information regarding their position."

 

Similarity Attraction Effect

 

"We tend to like people whom we perceive to be similar to ourselves. Negotiators are more likely to make concessions with people they know and like. Some negotiators get positive results by purposely making themselves ‘similar’ to the other party: body posture, mood, verbal style, and dress. See Mirror and Match Technique."

 

Sinister Attribution

 

"This term originated from analysis of negotiations conducted via email. There is a tendency for people involved in email negotiations to attribute sinister (evil) motives to people whom they have not formed any social relationships. Participants in email negotiations are more likely to suspect the other person of lying or deceiving them, relative to negotiations that are conducted face-to-face where some degree of trust can be developed. This is why Schmoozing is important when one is conducting an email based negotiation. Attempt to form some social connections as a way to overcome this sinister attribution bias that may be impacting your e-negotiation."

 

Slicing

 

"Used for complex, multi-issue negotiations, it is often helpful to divide up the negotiation into its various components; come to agreement on the simpler issues; and then tackle the tougher issues. This can help pave a way to agreement. During the course of coming to agreement on the simpler issue, relationships improve, and communication-understanding improve. This sets the stage for a more productive process when the tough issues are tackled. See ‘Fragmentation’ and ‘Divide And Conquer.’ See ‘Salami Tactics.’"

 

Small Talk

 

"Schmoozing, the development of personal, social connections unrelated to the negotiation. This results in better rapport, trust, and friendship with the other person. Non-task related contact with others involved in the negotiation helps establish stronger relationships which in turn has a positive effect on the negotiation process and builds a foundation for future negotiations. Research shows that schmoozing results in more profitable business as compared to deals when people simply get down to business. Parties are less likely to reach an impasse, more alternatives are created, and the parties become more optimistic about future work together. Schmoozing is a wise investment in the relationship that can pay off big."

 

 

Smokescreens

 

"Used to change the subject, cloud an issue, or delay a decision. A new person may be temporarily introduced into the negotiation. A new issue is brought up that must be investigated. Suddenly the scope of issues is expanded to include broader issues. Significant new information is introduced that must be analyzed."

 

Spheres of Mutual Interest and Interdependence

 

"The more opposing parties develop intersecting spheres of mutual interest and interdependence, the more bargaining power they are likely to exert. The range of possible outcomes where both parties are satisfied with the agreement. This generally is the overlap area between each party’s acceptable low and high range. It also encompasses interdependency created by personal relationships and shared respect—a blending of personal and business relationships. See Bargaining Zone and ZOPA"

 

Spin

 

To put a positive ‘spin’ on your communications with another party by aligning the topic being discussed with the other party’s particular interests or needs.

 

Split The Difference Technique

 

Offer to agree on a half-way position. Make equal concessions to settle the difference.

 

Squeaky Wheel

 

"Adopting a negative, demanding emotional style of negotiating. Using hostility and threats to demonstrate an unwillingness to move away from a stated position. A negotiator often is compelled to concede or give in just to stop an irritating squeaky wheel. It’s just not worth it to hold their position. "

 

Squeaky Wheel

 

"Adopting a negative, demanding emotional style of negotiating. Using hostility and threats to demonstrate an unwillingness to move away from a stated position. A negotiator often is compelled to concede or give in just to stop an irritating squeaky wheel. It’s just not worth it to hold their position. "

 

Straw Issues

 

Imbed items or issues that are relatively unimportant to you into the negotiation and treat them as ‘essential.’ Use these items as trade-off concessions to gain agreement on items you really do value. Asserting things that are not true or taking positions or making an offer that is ultimately withdrawn after the introduction of the issue has impacted the other side’s position. Used like the 'Bluff' to test the other party. It works when you agree to forget about some of your real interests in exchange for the other party forgetting about some of their ‘straw issues’ or fictitious interests. See ‘Decoys.’

 

Sunk Cost Principal

 

Economic principals assert only future costs and benefits should be used to make decisions. Every negotiator should be aware that humans tend to remember past costs that have been spent or invested. This history and memory creates a bias and influences behaviors during a negotiation.

 

Surprise Issues

 

"The introduction of surprise issues, tangential to the negotiation, can act as a smokescreen and slow down a negotiation. They often provide one side to the negotiation more time to reconsider their position prior to making a final agreement."

 

Sweetening the Deal

 

One party to a negotiation adds items to a negotiated package or deal to enhance satisfaction of the other party. Sometimes used as a ‘deal closer’ (e.g. and we will toss this in at no charge). See That’s Not All Technique.

 

T

 

Take-It-Or-Leave-It

 

Give the other party only two options – accept this or end the negotiation. This is a very tough negotiating tactic and often leads to resentment and hostility. This approach certainly removes any opportunity for Both-Win value creation. When confronted with a Take-It-Or-Leave-It a good negotiator will ask for consideration. This tests the resolve of the party and explores opportunities to move away from this firm position. Techniques such as – what if? Would you consider? How much better? It shouldn’t apply in this case. Who can change the policy? – Often open a pathway into a more productive negotiation. See ‘Doorknob Price’.

 

Target Setting

 

See Aspiration Point.

 

Task vs. Personal Conflict

 

"Separate the person from the problem. Task conflicts are depersonalized. The analysis and problem solving process aimed at a task can enhance relationships and lead to better solutions. On the other hand, personal conflict often threatens relationships as individuals become defensive and resentful. Creativity is stymied when personal conflict is present."

 

The Vice Tactic

 

You've got to do better than that. See Krunch.

 

Threats

 

"Threaten extreme action if the other side does not agree. Threat is implicit in every negotiation, whether it is expressed openly or not. There is always a possibility of deadlock and if talks fail both parties expect to lose something. Threats also create hostility and may have unexpected consequences. If you are going to use a threat, take the following precautions: 1-Threats have to be credible. The other party must believe that the threat will be carried out. If you threaten but fail to follow through, you lose credibility and authority. A threat is likely to be believed if the threatening party has made good on previous threats. 2-Threats need to be proportional to the problem at hand. If you want a small concession, don’t make a big threat. 3-Before threatening, be sure you have the resources to follow through and make sure your organization is willing to back you in taking the necessary action. 4-Threats may win momentary concessions, but they leave a residue of anger. The threatned party may get revenge later. 5-Threats can break up long term partnerships or create distrust between parties that have spent years building a relationship. 6-Threats have a way of getting out of control and sometimes have have consequences that the person delivering the threat may not have intended."

 

Time Pressures

 

"There is a tendency to focus on your own time pressures rather than on the pressures the other side also has. It could be that you have common time pressures, or that your time pressure is actually transferred to the other side because if you don’t come to agreement before time is up, they also lose out on the opportunity to make a deal. Be careful as the deadline approaches. Negotiators tend to make more concessions and bigger concession the closer the deadline. If you find time pressures working against you, find out what can be done to relieve the time pressure. Many time pressures are self-imposed. See Deadlines."

 

Tirades

 

Outbursts often throw the other side off balance. See Emotional Outbursts.

 

Tit-for-Tat

 

"Making similar or like exchanges of information, concessions, introductions, money, or something else of value that are given by one party to another party. Think of: ‘You scratch my back and I’ll scratch your back,’ ‘I did this for you now you owe me.’ See Reciprocity and Quid-Pro-Quo."

 

Total Cost Approach

 

"The total cost approach is a powerful negotiating tool for any seller under price pressure. Use the total cost approach to defend a firm price. If price appears to be the sticking point, do what Albert Einstein suggested when he said, “No problem can be solved at its own level.” Direct your negotiation towards total cost instead of price. The price of what is being sold is only one component in the total cost of ownership. The process of identifying all of the components that go into ‘Total Cost’ provides a fertile environment for relationships to build between the negotiators and for each side to uncover potential Both-Win opportunities that are not focused on the single issue of price."

 

Trade-Offs

 

"One party concedes or yields on issues. While it would appear a concession by one party would bring the participants closer to agreement, sometimes a concession can do just the opposite. Developing a concession strategy is an important part of any negotiation. See Concessions and Log Rolling."

 

Trial Balloons

 

Suggest a solution or option to see if the other side ‘Bites.’ Exploring potential opportunities or alternatives. See What If? and ‘Fishing.’

 

Triangulation

 

"Determining if a person is lying by asking a variety of questions, all designed to validate the same information or fact. When inconsistencies surface you can infer the person is lying. Liars find it very hard to remain perfectly consistent in all aspects of a lie."

 

Tunnel Vision

 

A tendency for negotiators in multi-issue negotiations to underestimate the number of options that are available. See Brainstorming.

 

Tying A String

 

"Make your agreement contingent upon the other side agreeing to another, maybe unrelated issue. See ‘Ask for Something in Return’ and ‘Linking.’"

 

U

 

Unanimity Rule

 

Requires a group’s decision to be unanimous – as opposed to a majority vote decision. Unanimity forces a group to consider a broader range of alternatives to expand the pie and create mutually beneficial trade-offs and assure the interests of all group members are satisfied. Studies indicate that groups operating under a unanimity rule reach more efficient outcomes than groups operating under majority rule.

 

Unbundling Issues

 

One reason some negotiations fail is because they get stuck on a single issue. Having flexibility to remove a troublesome issue from a negotiation can pave the way to agreement.

 

Venting

 

V

 

"Letting individuals express their frustrations, disappointment, anger, feelings regarding an issue or event helps relieve tension in a negotiation and helps create a bridge to agreement. When a negotiation becomes heated allow time for participants to vent. This often helps get a negotiation back on track."

 

W

 

Walking Away

 

"When negotiations walk away from the negotiation by rejecting all terms offered, even though the offered terms are better than their BANTA. This often happens due to emotions, ego, or sometimes, just a bad calculation."

 

Walk-Out Tactic

 

"Sometimes walking out or forcing an impasse (deadlock) can be done for strategic purposes. When used as a strategy to test the other sides resolve, or to buy yourself more time, it is important to plan in advance how you will re-open the negotiation at a later date."

 

Wasted Work Principle

 

"People don’t like to waste their energy. Once they have worked on something, they want the effort to pay off. The more work they have done in a negotiation, the more they want agreement. Once a negotiator has invested a great deal of time, effort, emotional equity and money in a negotiation, the more desperate they are to close a deal."

 

What If? Technique

 

Suggest a solution or option to see how the other side responds. Exploring potential opportunities or alternatives. This technique is a way to get information from the other party that ordinarily might not be given. Good ‘What If’ questions provide insights into the other party’s business practices and motivations. These questions can open up new avenues of though for both parties and create opportunities for agreement. See Trial Balloon and Fishing

 

Wince

 

"An emotional, physical and verbal reaction to an offer, then silence to see how the other side may modify their offer. See ‘Flinch.’"

 

Winner's Curse

 

"This feeling of remorse occurs when a negotiator sets their target or aspiration (goal or objective) too low at the start of the negotiation and the other party immediately agrees. Rather than being satisfied with the outcome of the negotiation, the remorseful negotiator feels: ‘I could have done better’; ‘I left money on the table.’"

 

Win-Win Negotiations

 

"There are generally several dimensions and several issues at play in any negotiation. Wise negotiators explore all the issues and dimensions of a negotiation to find trade off areas and ways to enhance the ultimate agreement for all parties. Creative trade offs between the different assets, needs and preferences each party has are diligently examined to find ways to build new value. When the pie is successfully expanded, both parties leave with new value that was created purely from the process of negotiating. See Both-Win and Expanding the Pie."

 

Wooing

 

Persistent wooing pays off in negotiations—provided it is done without conveying a sense of desperation. People prefer to do business with others who demonstrate that they want and appreciate the business. Tell the other party again and again how much you want to please them. Tell them how much you want to do business with them and how it will benefit them. Quantify the benefits for them. Woo them. Tell them why their decision to do business with you will be a wise one. Address their interests not yours.

 

Worse Product Approach

 

"A buyer finds out what a seller will take by offering to consider a somewhat lower quality item, and then tries to buy the higher quality item for the lower price."

 

Worth Analysis

 

"Part of planning your negotiation strategy. Worth analysis is different than cost-analysis. In worth analysis all economic and psychological factors are considered. Worth is the power to satisfy wants. Its value depends upon what is considered useful or desirable to a person in a particular situation. Cost is only one of the many elements that are considered in assigning worth. If a special component is required to keep a manufacturing line running, and a one-day delay costs $2,000, a buyer is justified in paying up to but not more than $2,000 for the component if the buyer can save a single day of operations. It makes no difference if the part costs $300 or $1."

 

Would You Consider? Technique

 

Suggest a solution or option to see how the other side responds. Exploring potential opportunities or alternatives. This technique is a way to get information from the other party that ordinarily might not be given. Good ‘Would You Consider’ questions provide insights into the other party’s business practices and motivations. These questions can open up new avenues of though for both parties and create opportunities for agreement. See Trial Balloon and Fishing

 

You've Have To Do Better Than That

 

"Puts pressure on the other party without elaborating on ""how much better."" Often this tactic is used by a participant to test the limits of the other party. This tactic is also known as the 'Krunch'."

 

Z

 

Zero Sum

 

The term is from "game theory" which refers to a scenario in which whatever one person wins equals whatb the other person loses. In other words, the interests of each party are in conflict and are diametrically opposed. 

 

Zeuthens Conflict Avoidence Model

 

It compares the gains of what is likely to be acheived against what is being offered with the net gains likely to be made by conflict. This model is a two stage process in which the respective parties make a compartive assessment of value attainable from accepting the other party's current offer with the anticipated value to be realized by holding firm to one's demand. 

 

ZOPA

 

In Harvard's "Zone Of Possible Agreement" it refers to the range of possible outcomes where there is overlap, common ground or both parties are satisfied with the agreement. This is most often defined as the overlap or intersection between the acceptable the low and high ranges for each side .