If you have ever found yourself in a similar situation, you will be with us when you have come to believe that there was no possible solution. If, in the end, you managed to ‘bend’ your ‘opponent’, congratulations, because it sure cost you to convince him, but it is true that, in many cases, the negotiations – to call them in some way – end up in tables or what is same in nothing, and in the worst case, they end up broken.
In case you face a tough negotiator to gnaw, those of those who will not ‘get off the donkey’ or, even if you push it [first of all, without express violence], take note of some of these tips that Deepak Malhotra offers us , in Negotiate the impossible (Active Company of Editions Uranus).
“In difficult negotiations, in which the parties are stuck, the paralysis can be resolved without using money or force, the key is in the power you have to formulate your proposals, and that is to make objectively identical proposals be more or less attractive simply by the way they are raised.”
“Negotiators who pose a conflict in terms of ‘the winner takes everything’ will have more difficulties than those who believe that it is possible for everyone to ‘win.’ Negotiators will be more or less willing to accept certain proposals when they adopt a prism. short-term rather than long-term, or when the offer seems better and no worse than initially expected, pay attention not only to the substance of what is being negotiated, but also to the prisms (financial, social, political, security, hostility, friendship, strategic …) through which the parties are evaluating their options, can sometimes help resolve seemingly impossible stalemates.”
“One of the problems of negotiations impossible from the beginning of the process is that, often, one of the parties is obstinately stubbornly insist on making demands that the other party can not meet or meet, that is, ask for the impossible, To demand concessions that for one of the parties are true reasons for breaking up A good strategy, in this sense, is to instruct the other party from the beginning about the limits of what can be offered and the areas where there is more or less flexibility.”
WHAT IS THE ‘AGREEMENT OPTICS’
“Too often, negotiators mistakenly assume that if the substance of the matter is properly understood (that is, if the proposal is sufficiently valuable for the other party), then you do not have to worry about its appearance, which is called ‘the optics of the agreement. “But what matters is not only the substance of what we offer, but the aspect it has for our interlocutors and their audience (partners, family members, customers, voters, media, competitors, etc.)” .
EMPATHIZE AND HELP TO ‘SELL’ THE AGREEMENT
“Help the other party to ‘sell’ to their audience what the final agreement would mean.You should think about how the other party will ‘sell’ the agreement and formulate the proposal with your audience in mind.”
SINCERITY AND TRANSPARENCY
“The more security you give the other party to tell us the truth, the more likely you are to tell us.” The best way to give them security is to show them, through our actions, that we do not take advantage of all the advantages we see and that we appreciate the risks they are assuming to be sincere or transparent about the important issues, reward transparency and do not take advantage of their moments of weakness. “
AVOID NEGOTIATING A SINGLE SUBJECT
“Avoid negotiations on a single controversial aspect.” A common problem in negotiations is the stalemate in a single issue of conflict, however illogical it may seem, negotiations tend to be easier when there is more than one thing to discuss. there is only one issue, and it is not easy to see how both parties get what they want (or all that they have promised their audiences) a ‘zero sum’ problem arises in which, at least, one of The parties will feel, or will appear to be losing, In such situations, it is useful to examine if other matters can be put on the table so that each party can leave with something.
“When different problems are negotiated, it is convenient to negotiate several issues simultaneously and not separately.” Many times, one party may think about giving in to one question in the hope that the other party will do it later in another. To avoid this, instead of trying to reach an agreement on an issue each time, you have to create the habit of making packages of offers and counteroffers.This strategy eliminates the risk that a concession made now will not be returned later. Thus, we can subordinate our concession to that of the other party, and, with several issues at the same time, the negotiators will find it easier to make sensible deals covering all the issues. “
GO TO THE POINT
“If there is only one issue, or there is one that is very relevant above the others, try to divide it into two or more independent issues.”
FLEXIBLE, VERY FLEXIBLE
“You have to be firm in the background, but flexible on the structure.” Once you’ve assessed what each party puts on the table, and after you’ve considered what it would be fair to demand, you should be as firm as you need to be. But your firmness on the merits should not overflow into stubbornness in the way your demands are met, a message that should be sent to the other party throughout the negotiation, in words and in I know where I have to go, but I’m flexible about how to get there, for example, the more ways you allow yourself to pay, the more likely you are to get paid. “