Vol. 5 No. 1		January 1986

There are measurable differences between skilled and average players in the negotiating game. Skilled negotiators are consistently successful. They produce agreements that hold together rather than fall apart when the chips are down. Most importantly, from your point of view at least, skilled negotiators tend to be considered effective by all who participate in the negotiation process.

Given the vital importance of the issues of risk and responsibility raised in your professional service agreements, and given that the very best of those agreements are the ones that never have to be tested in court, your skills at the negotiating table can be one of the most effective loss prevention resources you have. You can sharpen those skills by taking your cues from the behavior of those who have proven to be very good.

The object of the negotiating game is a fair and equitable outcome. But, while you might agree to focus on the objective and not on the game, those with whom you negotiate may well approach the process from a different perspective. If so, their goal is likely to be to persuade you cheerfully to agree to concessions not in your best interests. Your goal is to persuade them to be reasonable. Successful negotiators are successful persuaders. Here are some of the key elements of successful persuasion:

1. Maintaining Composure. Skilled negotiators avoid verbal gymnastics which antagonize without persuasive effect. Direct attacks on the integrity or the moral fiber of the other side are obviously counterproductive, and they are seldom used. Less obviously disruptive are words and phrases with positive value content which, nevertheless, cause irritation, "A most generous offer," for example, and "more than fair," when used to describe one's own position, come across as self-serving. They are irritating because they imply that the other side is being greedy and unfair. Skilled negotiators know that gratuitously favorable statements are harmful at worst and valueless at best. They do not use them. Average negotiators, on the other hand, frequently communicate positive value judgments about themselves and the positions they are seeking to advance.

2. Disagreeing with Style. When most of us are presented with an unacceptable argument, our natural reaction is, first, to conclude we disagree and, second, to formulate a rationale in support of that conclusion. Because this is how we think, it is common, under stress, to respond in precisely the same way-to blurt out our disagreement and support it with a string of compelling arguments. In doing so, we heighten tension and invite a defense response. Skilled negotiators avoid signaling their intention to disagree. They begin, instead, by articulating their reasons. Then, by way of explanation, they lead carefully to an alternate conclusion. This has the effect of deferring a defensive response long enough to allow the explanation to be considered in an atmosphere of relative neutrality. It enhances the likelihood of consensus.

3. Asking Questions. It is tempting, and usually a mistake, to respond to a proposal with a counter-proposal. Such a response introduces new options at a point at which the other party is least likely to be receptive. It is often viewed as a thinly veiled blocking tactic, and if it does nothing else, it tends to complicate and confuse issues in a situation in which the need for clarity is paramount. Successful negotiators generally avoid counter-proposal responses. They prefer to raise open-ended questions, hoping to learn more about the other party's position and to buy time to formulate a reasoned reply. Questions give the questioner a certain amount of control over the flow of communications, and they often serve as an effective alternative to outright disagreement.

4. Testing Understanding. Average negotiators typically seek (what they perceive to be) safety in ambiguity. By leaving issues unclear, the risk of undesired disagreement is reduced, and the short-term objective of quickly concluding the negotiations is enhanced. Skilled negotiators, on the other hand, demonstrate a far greater concern with clarity of understanding. The ultimate viability of the agreement depends upon it, and they are not willing to jeopardize that viability by leaving ambiguities unresolved. They will restate information to test for misconceptions and misunderstandings, and they will periodically summarize progress in a concise recapitulation of the points that have been made. Their objective is a clear, common understanding that will withstand the tests of time.

5. Persuading with Precision. For reasons not entirely clear, something in our chemistry leads us to believe that quantity has a direct bearing on outcome when it comes to supporting an argument with rationale. Thus, if we can invent seven ingenious reasons to support our position and you can think of only two in support of yours, ipso facto, we win. In practice, this is generally not so. A very strong argument tends to be diluted as more and more incidental points are introduced to support it. This occurs because the discussion is likely to be focused (and to turn) on the weakest of the underlying reasons. Skilled negotiators know that, if they advance single reasons with patience and persistence, they are far more likely to persuade in the end than if they let loose a barrage. The option of shifting to subsidiary arguments is not foreclosed by this approach, and that option can always be exercised if the principal argument appears to be losing ground.

6. Building Trust. The Sam Slade image of negotiator--poker player par excellence, cards close to the vest--is inconsistent with the behavior of those who are most successful at the negotiating table. Skilled negotiators talk about the internal feelings they have about the process as it moves along; average negotiators are more likely to deal with their emotions in stony silence. "I'm uncomfortable with the direction we're taking, but if I understood more about what you're trying to accomplish, it might help us both," is likely to be far more effective than, "I have to insist that we stay on point." Expressions of internal feelings build trust and facilitate agreement because they reveal (or at least appear to reveal) what is going on behind the mask. In the process, they communicate motives that are genuine and above-board. Stony silence fosters suspicion.

These are some of the principal differences between very successful and very average persuaders. They reflect a pattern of behavior surprisingly consistent with the natural inclinations and the professionalism of architects and engineers. This is good news. You can be every bit as effective at the negotiating table as you are in your design review meetings. All you need is the will to put your inherent skills to the test and the confidence that, in the end, everyone will benefit from your efforts.