But I don't want to Say what my interests are!

Like most modern negotiation trainers, I teach not to focus on positions but on interests. Awhile ago I gave a seminar, and one of the participants told me he doesn't want ever to disclose his interests, because then his negotiation partners will know what to withhold to put pressure on him.

Let's leave aside the notion that there has been no trust at all established, and that he may be contributing subtly to that distrust, maybe by non-verbal communication. What can he do? He has an important or even key interest, but is afraid of saying so.

Here's an idea to get around his problem. Instead of laying out for the other side what his interests are, my participant could just come to the first meeting with a list of issues or talking points—an agenda of things he thinks the eventual agreement ought to cover. He need not unduly emphasize the one that is key for him until and unless the other party is also forthcoming.

Negotiation 101: It is important to avoid positions, instead focusing on your interests, if you prefer by presenting a set of talking points or issues, not all key to your happiness.

Is It Hypocrisy?

If you look at my web page about Professional Negotiation, http://gotiation,gotiationpro.com/Negot.html, you see I advocate a style and philosophy of negotiating that seeks to expose and then if possible satisfy the needs of both sides. But the page loads with an animation that exhorts "Don't Leave Money on the Table." How can I believe in both?

Negotiation properly done is each side gradually, as it gains trust in the other, exposing what it feels it needs to get from the negotiation. As I emphasize often, this does not mean stating a "position" but listing needs. Often a position focuses on price, only one part of real world deals. And it contemplates a back and forth auction. I advocate instead persuading the other side and yours that the appropriate price is one based on fair and objective standards. A "position" has no place in this process.

If the final price is fair and objective, then neither side has left money on the table and both have as closely as possible had their needs met.

Negotiate in Your Zen Space

Practitioners of the Zen philosophy have something to teach those of us who are not, something that is helpful to the process of negotiation.

The most difficult part of negotiation for most people is keeping your cool in the face of the pressure to succeed, the pressure tactics used by others, resulting anger, and often the knowledge that a negotiation table is not a familiar place. Finding your Zen space can help enormously and, with reasonable practice, this can come naturally.

Practice in advance getting into Your Zen Space. You will be seeking awareness stripped of those obscuring layers imposed by mindless thoughts, self-referent attachments and dogmas. You will be seeking to view reality, as it is, a "mindful" state.

At first, use a quiet room, away from distractions, with neutral decorations. Get some non-disturbing music playing, whatever relaxes you. Sit in a comfortable chair. Close your eyes. Take three deep breaths, focusing your thoughts on your inhales and exhales. Review your thoughts and then discard them. Focus only on what it feels, sounds and looks like in this state. Imagine yourself watching yourself from outside.

This state is not sleep, but neither is it the hyper-alert, stirring state of mind when we are awake.

Practice this process often, in conditions that increasingly less isolated, so you can eventually get here wherever you are. You have found your Zen space, where you can think and interact without interference from your fears, biases and presuppositions.

Negotiate After that Insult? A Sign of Weakness.

Your opposite number insults you at the bargaining table, with words or an insulting offer, or otherwise provokes you. Isn't it a sign of weakness for you to keep bargaining?

Actually, the insult or provocation is a sign of that person's feelings of weakness. They are trying to maneuver you to cut off bargaining, so they can feel good that they did not cut it off.

If you can maintain your poise, you will be in a good position to pursue the bargaining and get a good result. Try it next time and you will enjoy the result. Just don't rise to the bait.

Instead, you can comment something like "I heard someone say that kind of thing on TV a week or two ago—not the kind of thing that disturbs me." Do not accuse or attack in return.

Then go on to describe what your needs are in the negotiation, and asking what theirs is, so perhaps a common ground can be found. A confident negotiator uses that style.

By the way, apology when you were insulting or otherwise not civil is not a sign of weakness. It is a sign of confidence in yourself.

Negotiation 101: Having been insulted or provoked, keep your cool and go on bargaining.

You Can't Negotiate with Pirates, Can You?

"The only good pirate is a dead pirate." This is what some are saying, now that Capt. Philips of the Maersk Alabama is safe. I do not actually recall this sentiment when he was at risk, but now it is safer.

A pirate gang is like any other hostage takers. Whether they are to be negotiated with or just assaulted depends on circumstances. That applies to almost any potential negotiation. Whether it is worth talking with someone who owes you substantial money, or who claims you owe them depends on your assessment of (a) the potential benefit of talking, (b) the risk of not talking first, (c) the risk of proceeding directly to action, (d) the potential benefit of direct action.

The past couple years quite a few pirated ships have bought their freedom through substantial payments by their owners. Presumably, in each case there was at least some negotiation over price, payment method, and other details. No one was injured. In the case of the French yacht Le Ponant, two pirates and one hostage were killed. Some will say you should discount the dead pirates, only count the hostage dead, but that is debatable. Taking down hostage takers is potentially risky.

It is more risky if you announce a policy that you will not negotiate. Not talking at all makes their benefit for keeping live hostages zero. They have every reason to kill hostages before the hostages try to overpower them.

The potential benefit of talking is illustrated by the Alabama experience. One of the four hostage takers was talked into giving up after he was slightly injured. Three were easier to shoot with less risk to the hostage than four were.

What is there to discuss with hostage takers? Depending on circumstances, letting them get back in their fishing boat, disarmed but with a promise of no jail, at least no US/French/Russian/German jail, may be appealing to them. On the other hand, they may prefer a deal where they do time in one of those jails, but not in a Somali jail.

In other words, price of a buy-off is never the only thing to talk about.

Reducing piracy off Somalia may best be had by automating the means of sending notice to authorities and ensuring that helicopters or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will soon be overhead relaying back live high-def video. Still, one should not confuse negotiation in a specific piracy situation with best strategies for reducing piracy. The facts are grossly different.

Treat the other side as fellow humans with different views

Like everyone, I see the recent deal with the North Koreans as a real opportunity to increase world stability and reduce the chance of nuclear war. As an attorney and negotiation trainer, I see a learning opportunity for everyone who makes deals.

The 5+ decades since the nominal end of the Korean War have featured each side feeling threatened by the other, steps taken to repulse the other, and lots of nasty name-calling. The President’s labeling North Korea part of an “Axis of Evil” was an example of demonizing the folks across the bargaining table. It cuts off discussion.

People say the Bush Administration has the past couple years begun to seek a deal with North Korea as trying to recover at least a bit of positive foreign relation
legacy. Perhaps, but that only explains why they did a deal.

The more important lessons have to do with how. We stopped referring to North
Korea as “Axis of Evil” or with other debasement. That was good. No one will bargain with someone who calls him a criminal.

We went to the table without “pre-conditions” or points the other side must concede at the beginning. Only a fool would make such concessions before coming to the table. We apparently listened in good faith to their concerns about invasion from the South, even though we consider those concerns paranoid. When you
listen to the other folks in good faith, they will listen to you, even though neither side can believe the other side believes what they claim to.

“We are all more human than otherwise,” someone said. If we keep that in mind about those we despise but must settle disputes with, we increase the chance that bargaining, however lengthy, will pay off.
Negotiation 101: Bargain with the other side as if you thought they are OK-- potential dinner partners-- with no pre-conditions, and you may actually make a deal even if you hate them.

Zen and Negotiation

I have not written for a while, having been busy both practicing law—mostly working with inventors to license their patents—and teaching seminars on negotiation.

Doing half a dozen seminars the past few months, I have been experimenting with titles and techniques. I have come to believe that attitude and affect are the most important things to bring to the table.

Books and teachers often teach tricks to use at the table, or clever parries. But this scripting carries a risk. What if you don’t recognize your cue when to use a trick or parry one? (Line, please.)

More important I think is to come to the table prepared mentally. At the least of course is being prepared with information about the folks on the other side, and with a good sense of what you need to bring away (not just a prepared “position” or demand and a fall back).

Scholars about the highest levels of negotiations—settling border disputes and avoiding war, and making high-value deals—know that is all about one’s own psychology, and maintaining self-control and self-awareness.

People familiar with the notion of Zen offer a way to do this, called “mindfulness.” At its essence, it means practicing the art of seeing yourself and your situation from outside yourself. It means seeing the whole picture, in its most objective way. It certainly means not demonizing the other people. And it means keeping your own balance when provoked.

Provocation is often not intentional, but simply the other side stating their needs, which do not match your own.

The best part is one does not need at all to become a Buddhist, does not need to adopt a religion, to become mindful. Nor for that matter to sit in a “lotus” position. One needs to study and practice.

Negotiation 101: Being aware objectively of the process and minute-to-minute changes of circumstance are key to negotiating successfully.

Splitting the Difference Can be Lose-Lose Negotiation

I want a million dollars for my building and you think it’s worth half that. Why don’t we just split the difference? One answer is that although it seems on the surface an efficient solution, it is really expedience, not reason.

To see that, let’s look at a famous dispute recorded in history where someone recommended splitting the difference. Two women came before King Solomon, sitting as judge, to settle a custody dispute involving a single living child. Each woman claimed that the other woman's baby had died, and that the surviving child was her own.

There was very little useful evidence. There were only two witnesses, the disputing parties, and each claimed to be biological mother of the child. They contradicted each other about their relationship with the surviving child. Each had a strong reason to lie and thus neither was credible.

Solomon was not stymied. After all, as king he was the law. He ordered the bailiff to bring a sword, to cut the surviving child in half, and to give each woman an equal share.

One of the women shrugged and quickly agreed to the plan. "Seems fair to me."

Still, the other woman wasn't pacified. She shrieked, "This isn't right! Please! Give her the child! Anything, but don't kill the baby!"

Solomon allowed the child to live. Pointing to the woman who complained about his proposal, he said, "This one is the mother," and awarded custody to her.

Who knows whether this really happened? Still, had Solomon not had the wisdom for which he is famous, it certainly would have been a case of splitting the difference.

Is splitting the difference for your current deal best, or would you be better off trying one of two other methods. The first is to think about whether the deal isn’t really more complex than just price. Are there other terms as or more important, such as payment scheduling or a million other things? If you are splitting a pie, is there any way to work together to make the pie bigger?

The other method is to see if the type of object in question or similar ones are sold often enough in the market to warrant looking at comparable sales. In real estate both parties would of course check that. However, in other areas the idea does not always occur. eBay® is a possible basis, but is tricky to use since only final bids are close to valid. Sometimes one can get hold of comparable salary data, while keeping in mind no two people are exactly fungible. Still, it’s worth looking for external market measures before jumping to a split. That is especially true since an exaggerated first offer by one of the parties distorts where the split is between them.

Negotiation 101: Don’t just split the difference. Think about an alternative method, such as negotiating other terms or looking for comparable things actually sold.

Negotiate ‘Off The Line’

In late Feb. ’07 the Edmonton Oilers ice hockey team dealt away one of their top players, Ryan Smyth, to the NY Islanders. Many were surprised, because Smyth is a native Canadian, (he grew up near Edmonton in Banff) and Canadian teams don’t often trade away Canadian players—it ticks off the locals. Why they did may have been a miscalculation by Smyth’s agent, Don Meehan.

Apparently, and I have no inside information (I read http://chuqui.typepad.com/two_for_elbowing/), Meehan and team G.M. Kevin Lowe were talking right up to the trade deadline, and were about $300K apart out of $5 million a year on a five-year deal. (Imagine the airborne testosterone.) Who is going to blink first? Meehan supposedly did not think Lowe would do a trade, but would blink first and kick in the extra 6%. Instead, Lowe picked up a phone and traded Smyth away.

Doing that, he ticked off fans but also scared every player negotiating with him for several years, until the memory fades. He probably pays a lot less for the player he gets for Smyth, giving him money to buy other players and maybe wins more games each year over the long haul. Also, he wounds Meehan’s reputation, perhaps helping himself even more, since Meehan has several players in his stable. There’s another hooker: not having signed a 5-year contract as they were discussing, Smyth apparently becomes a free agent in a few months, and Lowe can try to get him back, but maybe at his price.

I am not going to second guess what should have happened in the emotional last 30 minutes. I am instead going to talk about how difficult it is to bargain when you insist on inching along the line that separates the two parties on price, each making small concessions.

Bargaining experts suggest you get “off the line.” Here’s what I mean—and from here I allow myself a bit of fiction, since I don’t know the facts about this hockey player. Maybe the length of the contract could also have been put in play. Depending on his age and injury history, Smyth might want a contract longer than five years, to protect himself. Lowe (management) might really have wanted a shorter contract, if Smyth’s future beyond three years or so is uncertain.

Meehan, the agent, might have offered to do a four-year deal, but with a guaranteed fifth year if Smyth scores so many goals the fourth year, in exchange for the $300K per year. Presumably, he knew his client’s needs exactly at this time, and had “chess-boarded” what might happen at the last moment. What if Lowe, the G.M., sees a long future for Mr. Smyth and refuses that? Then Meehan can suggest—or Lowe might—a longer deal than five years, with a few more bucks per year.

Or there could be bonuses each year for goals scored, or opponent goals blocked (or major opposing players sent home on medical leave—maybe not).

The point is that it is no longer a pure blinking contest. When there are continuing relations between the negotiators, no one really wins a blinking contest. It makes everything a personal contest, with the players as pawns. Better to get into shared problem solving. (Better, also, not to bargain in the last 30 minutes, but humans tend to procrastinate, including me.)

Bargaining ‘off the line’ is an example of what negotiation pros call moving from the personal to problem solving—treating the situation as a problem both sides want solved, and working together despite different interests to satisfy the both interests as well as possible. It’s a lot less stressful than horse-trading and gets better results.

A Successful Negotiation and its Lessons

Global Software, a large developer/marketer of specialized software, bought out the stock and thereby the main product of SuperTech Software. That main product was not fully developed, but promised great returns for Global, because the timing was right to take advantage of new government regs requiring such software. Global budgeted an extra ten per cent beyond the buy-out price to purchase training for its software people to learn enough about the product to finish developing it to something marketable.

Then they approached Cindy, the project manager and a principal developer at the former SuperTech, seeking the training they needed. They offered the budgeted 10%, but had a list of training tasks, although with missing parts. Cindy was confident that, personally and with colleagues she would organize, she could deliver the training. But not for the ten percent. What could she do?

Cindy’s business coach spent an hour or two with her persuading Cindy she could conduct an effective negotiation. She also got a few pointers from a professional negotiator. Then she approached Global’s project manager, Charles. She set a date to visit with him, and prepared a spreadsheet showing all the tasks that would be needed, reasonable prices for each task, and the total, which was about three times the budgeted 10%.

On the appointed day, and in several later phone calls, Cindy went over the details of the spreadsheet with Charles, explaining the amount of time required for each task, why the prices were in line with industry standards. She also explained how Global would waste its large investment if it went cheap on the tech transfer training, perhaps never completing the project, or completing it after the window of sales opportunity closed. He countered by explaining how they had set up a fixed budget and could not change it.

Finally, with persistence she convinced Charles, Global’s project manager. He in turn went to his boss and his boss’s boss to seek additional investment in training, using the materials Cindy provided. After hemming and hawing, the higher managers agreed, and Global issued a contract to Cindy, one that would assure her and her colleagues months of remunerative and interesting work.

This story—the names have been changed—illustrates several points about successful negotiating. The first is how important preparation is. The detailed spreadsheet greatly helped Cindy make her points. Doing it in advance enabled her to take the time to do it right.

The second is the use of outside, objective data. Here, that data were the prices for the various tasks, compared to typical pricing for similar training tasks.

Point three is that Cindy separated out any personal emotions she had initially about Global apparently trying to cheat her by offering a lowball contract, and using Charles as a battering ram.

The fourth point is Cindy stuck to her guns without being personally obnoxious or angry, but instead remaining informative. Eventually this negotiation worked out successfully.

That SOB Has To Give Up His Ace Before I’ll Talk With Him.

The recent Iraq Study Group report and the various reactions to it shine a light on a frequent problem in all kinds of negotiation and dispute resolution.

The Study Group recommended that the US and Israel, with slightly different interests, both begin talks with Iran and Syria. The idea for the US is to find a way to extricate itself from Iraq. From what I can tell, Pres. Bush refuses to speak with Iran until and unless Iran in advance gives up its apparent vision of having nuclear weapons.

I am not going to tell the world’s leaders how to solve the Iraq and Israel/Palestine problems. I don’t have all the facts. Still, as I have said, this position shines light on a stance people sometimes take in negotiating. Simply stated, “I will not sit down with that SOB unless he first [gives up his strongest negotiating card, his ace].” Well, you know he is not going to, and things will remain at impasse, likely with continual provocation back and forth.

What’s going on? Some folks think that a negotiating position that strong will pressure the other person to give up his ace and back down. Not likely.

For some folks it isn’t a tactic. They really are that stubborn, and don’t care whether the other person gives up his ace, as long as they don’t have to change their stated position that demands that the other person does give up his ace. That is, it is pure stubbornness, a/k/a “principal.” Things will remain at an impasse with escalating hostility a long time. Just the same as if it were just a negotiating tactic.

How does that impasse get broken down and a deal get done? Maybe it can’t be. Maybe both sides have to be so bloodied they can no longer stand, and the people who eventually take over for them are more reasonable.

There is another way. The person with the unmeetable demand can permit someone to negotiate for him (or her) without apparent authority. This ‘back channel’ can open a door. True, at the start there will be little if any trust on either side. So, why negotiate with someone you don’t trust?

The short answer is if you don’t you will never resolve the issues, and may spend years in hostile disagreement, with each side taking various types of hits. Or break a deal that might be good for both sides.

The longer answer is trust can be built up with a series of small concessions, sometimes as little as the shape of the bargaining table. (Don’t laugh. The negotiations that ended the Viet Nam War took several years and in the beginning focused on that subject.)

The gradual process can help each side understand the other and learn what makes the other tick, partly based on carrying through with promises and on operating in apparent good faith. Note that good faith is not the same as caving in. It means honesty and a degree of candor.

Why negotiate with your enemy? Because, again, if you don’t you will remain at war. That may be as small as continuing exchanges of neighborhood nastiness like throwing garbage over the fence at 2 a.m. or making unnecessary noise. Of course, it can be as large as confrontations of thousands or millions of heavily armed troops. Or something in between. It always means no-one wins. In other words, the alternative to talking with your enemy stinks.

Negotiation 101: Consider sitting down to talk with your sworn enemy or someone you don’t trust a danged bit, because if you don’t the alternative stinks.

Speak reasonably and don't brandish a unilateral

In a recent article, an Israeli foreign policy expert named Gidi Grinstein speaks in favor of negotiation while carrying a big stick to the bargaining table. I do not agree and I will tell you why.

Grinstein’s context is admittedly very specific, namely the Mideast. His primary contentions are that both Israel and Palestine have two problems in common. One is for different internal reasons their governments are weak and instable. Both, although he only mentions Palestine, are subject also to pressures from their internal extremists not to bargain at all, not make peace, coupled with a will to violence. Somehow, he believes these are a reason to always come to the bargaining table brandishing a willingness to resort, if bargaining busts, to doing something unilateral.

That may not necessarily be violent, but not bargained for. As an example, he cites Israel giving up its decades old control over the West Bank. Without making clear why, he says this would be a blow to the Palestine government. I suppose it would deprive them of something to complain about bitterly.

Why not do something unilateral or carry the possibility with you to the table? Imagine yourself across the table from someone with a unilateral he or she displays, such as “I might do this. I might file suit while we are in these talks.” And your reaction? I’d bet something like, “Go ahead and file your effing suit, I’m ready.” Notice that your opponent is not saying “If these talks fail I will be forced to file suit.” That is understood, and your opposite will not see this as intended to break the talks.

Therefore, the key is not whether one has a unilateral available but whether it is brandished, or kept invisible and in quiet reserve. Quiet reserve is consistent with a sincere effort to have useful talks and to create trust. Brandishing … well, that’s obvious.

Negotiation 101: In negotiating any deal you almost always have something you can do unilaterally, like stop selling to or buying from the other side, but refrain from flaunting this unless you want to end serious bargaining.

Drop the "Devil" shit and you will understand your enemy

Like many of us, I have been focused a great deal on the horrific fighting in southern Lebanon and Northern Israel, and how these are part of a much larger drama that also features Iran, Syria, Russia and the US and others. Anyone can see that all this violence needs to stop and the differences—and they are real—be settled at the bargaining table. But how?

For most of us, we cannot even understand what is going on, largely because we see the whole travail through the eyes of a side we feel has been dealt injustice by the other. Actually, it is not so hard to see what is going on and what is going to go on soon in international affairs.

Still, the first step is a very important and difficult one.

Back in the days of the cold war, each side's military and most of their political backers — US and USSR — saw the other as devils. In many case the metaphor was taken quite literally. The "Communists" were "Godless Communists." The demonization was complete.

You cannot understand your enemy's thinking unless you cease thinking of him as the devil. Yes, he remains the enemy, but while he is conspiring with his friends, he does so because he believes YOU are the devil, and are conspiring with YOUR friends to crush him. And you are, because while you are not the devil you believe he is and is plotting to crush you. Which he is. Not because he is the devil, but because he believes you are planning to crush him. Which you are. Because ...

Your enemy's generals are for the most part not diabolical but are charged with protecting their homeland, just as yours are, and they take that seriously, as they are trained and sworn to.

Negotiation 101: Drop the "devil" shit, and you will be able to understand your enemy and negotiate with him to de-escalate violence, and stop or prevent war.

Negotiating through Media

In a totally connected world governments and others frequently negotiate by public statements they expect to get into newspapers and on TV, and from there to their opposite entities. For example, In January the Israeli government made a public statement through its acting prime minister that it would not talk further toward peace with the Palestinian Authority, now lead by HAMAS, until HAMAS renounces violence.

On its face that looks like a cutoff of talks, but it is not. It is just negotiating publicly. HAMAS is not likely to comply literally, but if it wants to move toward peace, it will make a counter-offer. Perhaps it will agree not to use violence so long as the Israeli government is willing to talk about HAMAS’s ‘just grievances.’ (The latter is my hypothetical, not a HAMAS statement.)

Labor and management, Republicans and Democrats, and other pairings frequently use this channel to negotiate. Why? Two reasons. First, they want to de-escalate but their clients or supporters are in such high dudgeon the representatives cannot be seen in the same room as their counterparts, or they will be seen as selling out their principles. So the idea is to have some talks via the media, spiral down the confrontation, and get to a point where their clientele will accept their talking directly. “We will not talk until they renounce violence” is more peaceful than “We will not talk.”

Alternatively, the point is to intimidate the other side. Then it usually comes with an “or else,” such as “or else Tuesday we will renounce the current contract and start firing union employees.” Either way, however, there are risks.

The big risk is bollixed messages. The media may well change the exact words or thoughts. Mostly that happens by truncation—passing part of the message. Whether by garbling or truncating, if the other side hears it wrong, and it was intended to keep a door open, they may actually raise their rhetoric and make things worse. So the message has to be wordsmithed to be as simple as possible.

The other risk is that the media don’t find the message interesting or controversial—newsworthy—enough and just don’t carry it. What do you do then?

If the message via media was to intimidate, and it does not go through, then the strategy of intimidation may fail. One might then have to deliver a direct message such as a letter, and that usually does not have the ‘ballsy’ quality of a threat via media.

Negotiation 101: You can negotiate via the press or TV/radio/Web, but make sure your message is simple, unambiguous and newsworthy, whether you are trying to de-escalate or intimidate.

Can We Negotiate the World's Way Out of the Iran Nuke Mess?

For many months, if you watch TV news, you have seen Iran go forward toward making nuclear weapons. There have been talks, on and off, between European powers and the US on one side and the Iranian government on the other. Europe and the US made dire threats of economic blockades and so forth. Iran then elected an even more stubborn nut case as Prime Minister.

This new guy, whose name westerners can’t pronounce or remember, claims the Holocaust never happened and preaches Israel should be pushed into the sea. Meanwhile, at home in Iran the Islamists push a repressive regime of closing newspapers, blocking western music and thought, etc. Western threats of blockades have not worked, and produced a worse situation. Can a deal still be struck?

I think so. Still, Western negotiation strategy must change. Thus far the goal has been to threaten Iran into submission, and the strategy has been threats. Forget it. Iran is Persia. It has been around thousands of years, and its people are proud of their successful history. Surrounded by Arab nations and mostly Muslim, they maintain their own language of Farsi (Persian). They are tough and they know what they want.

Instead of ever more nightmarish Western threats, none believable, the West needs to work on discovering what Iran really needs. I suspect that nuclear weapons, which will cost billions of dollars to develop or buy parts of, are not the real need. The closer they get to having nukes, the broker Iran gets, and the closer to Israel making a first nuclear strike. Bad stuff.

We found out after the Cold War that what Russia really wanted was not world conquest but to believe the West (US, et al.) no longer was planning to invade. I don’t know whether we were planning this, but they thought so and had reason to believe it.

My guess is Iranians in the street have similar fears of invasion. After all, whether for reasons you may approve or not, nearby Afghanistan and Iraq have been invaded . We need to find their real fears and fearlessly address them, without compromising our own security.

Negotiation 101: Learn the real needs of your negotiating partner, forget pounding the table, and address the needs.

If we apply this, we can defuse the Iran Nuke situation.

The Marble Deal

"I don't care if it's a '4 Panel End of Day 15/16" Onionskin.' It's still just a marble, and I won’t give you a hundred bucks for it. 75 bucks, my final offer, take it or leave it."

"Look, it’s worth every nickel, but I need the cash, so I’ll throw in this china-grade hand painted clay marble from the 1800s. In fact I’ll give you three of them, all different, for the next five minutes or forget it."

This little negotiation started off as a traditional negotiation, "position based". Many negotiations never get more sophisticated, and may end in no deal. If one party switches to a “needs-based” bargaining model, things can go forward.

That can happen by one asking the other what his or her real needs are. Almost every deal is really based on multiple dimensions—if nothing else, the terms of payment. A buyer, like this one, may need quick cash, but willing to throw in something extra "to boot." On the other hand, a buyer may need time to complete payment, and be willing to come up in price to get the time.

Negotiation 101: needs-based negotiation seeks to discover this information to smooth the way to a deal. For more, see my article at A Better Way to Negotiate .