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 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.

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 .