Rackham & Carlisle’s research on the differences between successful negotiators vs. their average counterparts was illuminating. It had an impact as very few studies have investigated what actually goes on face-to-face during a negotiation, mainly because:
- Real negotiators are reluctant to let a researcher watch them at work. Such research requires the consent of both negotiating parties.
- A lack of methodology. Until recently there were few techniques available which allowed an observer to collect data on the behavior of negotiators without the use of cumbersome and unacceptable methods such as questionnaires.
So, do their findings have practical application?
The first problem R & C encountered was how do you separate out the successful negotiator from their average counterparts?
Differentiating Successful Negotiators
- Should be rated as effective by both sides
- Should have a track record of significant success.
- Long term – to overcome short term rip-off merchants
- Should have a low incidence of Implementation failures.
Successful negotiators show marked differences in their interactions when compared with average negotiators
Behaviors Avoided
Irritators – Words which have no value but do cause irritation.
For example:
- “generous offer” – in describing own proposal
- “Fair”, “reasonable” and other terms with a high positive value loading, have no persuasive power when used as self-praise, whilst service to irritate the other party because of the implication that they are unfair, unreasonable, etc.
Negotiators realize you shouldn’t say anything against the other side – but find it difficult not to say gratuitously favorable things about themselves.
| Negotiating Behavior | Skilled | Average |
| Use of Irritators per hour of Face-to-face speaking time | 2.3 | 10.8 |
Counter Proposals
Skilled Negotiators seem to make far fewer immediate counter proposals than the average negotiator.
| Negotiating Behavior | Skilled | Average |
| Counter Proposals per hour of Face-to-face speaking time | 1.7 | 3.1 |
Disadvantages of Counter Proposals
- Introduces a new option – “a gear change” or whole new issue which clouds and complicates the clarity of the negotiation. When put forward, the other party is least receptive, i.e. occupied with their own proposal.
- They are seen as blocking or disagreeing by the other party, not as proposals.
The study of 87 Controlled Pace Negotiator’s exercises there is an 80% chance that the other side sees a proposal as such but if followed immediately by a counter proposal, the chance of it being seen as a proposal falls to 61%.Therefore it would seem to explain why the Skilled Negotiator is less likely to use counter proposing as a tactic.
Defend/Attack Spirals
As negotiations nearly always involve conflict, there is a danger that the conflict is not managed, and emotion enters the arena. One emotional defense is followed by an attack. This process very quickly can spiral out of control thus a Defend/Attack Spiral. The root causes of such spirals are remarks like “You Can’t Blame Us for That!”
| Negotiating Behavior | Skilled | Average |
| Defend/Attack behaviors per Negotiation Session | 1.9 | 6.3 |
Skilled Negotiators
Average Negotiators use 3x Defend/Attacks as skilled. If Skilled Negotiators use Attacks – sharp, and hard, no warning
Argument Dilution
A common belief is that you win by the “weight” of your argument as if there was some special merit in the quantity of reasons given to support one’s position. But, for Skilled Negotiators it is the fewer reasons to back each argument that increases their chances of success. The Skilled Negotiator wants to avoid exposing his flank by giving a “weakest link in their chain of argument”. This is why Argument Dilution is an important concept
| Negotiating Behavior | Skilled | Average |
| No. of reasons/argument or case | 1.8 | 3.0 |
Behaviors Used
Labelling/Flagging
Labelling/flagging behavior gives following advantage:
- Activates listening/forces a response
- Slows negotiation down, gives time to think
- Use of formality, taking away cut-and-thrust, and so keeps it on a rational level
- Reduces ambiguity – clarity of communication.
Examples:
- Let me make a suggestion….
- Can I ask a question…?
- Here’s my thinking…
|
Negotiating Behavior |
Skilled |
Average |
| No. of Labelled Behaviors per hour of Face-to-Face speaking time |
6.8 | 2.7 |
| No. of Labelled Disagreements | 0.4 | 1.5 |
But Skilled Negotiators avoided labelling disagreements — Why? There are Alternatives Modes of Disagreeing like:
- Give Reasons & Explanation
- Then
- Statement of Disagreement
In other words Skilled Negotiators do the opposite of what we all tend to do.
Testing Understanding & Summarizing
| Negotiating Behavior | Skilled | Average |
| Testing Understanding & Summarizing as % of all Behaviors used | 17.2% | 8.3% |
This difference the researchers believe comes from the Skilled Negotiators concern for clarity. The Average Negotiator is concerned about getting an agreement even if it means having some ambiguity. Conversely, Skilled Negotiators are more focused on success implementation.
Consequently, you will hear the Skilled Negotiator say things like reflecting others’ words to gain further responses or clarify an implementation concern.
Seeking Information
| Negotiating Behavior | Skilled | Average |
| Seeking Information as % of all Behaviors used | 21.3% | 9.6% |
Why is this difference is so marked? Some reasons
- Getting information
- Using questions as a deliberate strategy
- Control
- More acceptable than direct disagreement
- Keep others partly active and reduce their thinking time.
Feelings Commentary
| Negotiating Behavior | Skilled | Average |
| Feelings Commentary (Giving Internal Information) per hour of Face-to-face speaking time | 12.1 | 7.8 |
Contrary to the image of keeping one’s words close …Average Negotiators give twice as much more external information reverse — facts, general expressions of opinion, etc. than their skilled counterparts. Why?
Although it may or may not be genuine, being transparent about one’s feelings builds trust and is far more skillful in expressing disagreement or criticism. For example:
“I’m very worried that we seem far apart on this particular point” — alternative to disagreement.
Summary
| Skilled Negotiator Behavior Profile | |
| Behaviors Avoided | Behaviors Used |
| Irritators | Behavior Labelling |
| Counter Proposals | Testing Understanding & Summarizing |
| Defend/Attacks | Seeking Information |
| Argument Dilution | Feelings Commentary |
The Foundation of Skilled Performance is Planning
There was no difference in the amount of time spent planning between the skilled and average negotiators. What was different was how they planned. Skilled Negotiator’s gave over three times as much attention to common ground areas as did average negotiators. They are more committed to find “a better deal for both parties”.
Exploring Options
The skilled negotiator is concerned with a wider spectrum of outcomes. The average negotiator considers fewer options especially, not considering those options that might be raised by other party
| Negotiating Behavior | Skilled | Average |
| Options considered per Negotiable Issue | 5.1 | 2.6 |
Looking for Common Ground
| Negotiating Behavior | Skilled | Average |
| Comments about areas of anticipated agreement or common goals | 38% | 11% |
Long Term or Short Term?
There was an alarming concentration of both groups on the Short Term.
| Negotiating Behavior | Skilled | Average |
| % of Planning Comments about Long Term considerations of Anticipated Issues | 8.5% | 4% |
| Ratio of Long Term to Short Term Comments | 1:10 | 1:25 |
Setting Limits
|
Negotiating Behavior |
Skilled | Average |
| Range of Limits Set or discussed | 2-3 | 1 |
The Skilled Negotiator set both upper and lower limits whereas the Average Group only focused on a single figure. This is an explanation for average performers not having the room to maneuver compared to their skilled counterparts.
Sequence and Issue Planning
Average negotiators use sequence planning e.g. point A must be agreed before being able to move on to negotiate on point B and so on. Skilled negotiators in contrast use issue planning. Each issue is negotiated on its merits unlinked to other issues and time sequencing is therefore less important. This does not mean that issues cannot be linked only that there is no pre-determined order.
Typical Sequence Plan Used by Average Negotiators
A leading to B leading to C
Typical Issue Plan Used by Skilled Negotiator’s
Issue Plan – E,g. A connects with B,C,D. B connects with A and C – Issues are independent and not linked by a sequence = Flexibility
Conclusions in Planning
The Skilled Negotiator is aware that a thorough knowledge of the facts is not enough? Average Negotiator does not appreciate to the same extent that the party will only agree if there is a payoff for them. Therefore, not enough time spent during planning considering the tactics and behaviors which will:
- Move the other party as opposed to presenting a good case.
- Allow they themselves can move.