Chapter 6- Bend their Reality Flashcards
Why Negotiation is never a linear formula: Add X to Y to get Z…
We all have irrational blind spots, hidden needs, and undeveloped notions.
We’re always taught to look for the win-win solution to accommodate, to be reasonable.
In the $150,000 ransom demand:
What’s the win-win here? What’s the compromise? The traditional negotiating logic that’s drilled into us from an early age, the kind that exalts compromises, says, “Let’s just split the difference and offer them $75,000. Then everyone’s happy.
Why the win-win mindset pushed by so many negotiators experts is usually ineffective and often disastrous.
At best, it satisfies neither side. And if you employ it with a counterpart who has a win-lose approach, you’re setting yourself up to be swindled.
Ex: mismatched shoes… one brown and one black
What does Chris says about on compromise:
We don’t compromise because it’s right; we compromise because it is easy and because it saves face. We compromise in order to say that at least we got half the pie. Distilled to its essence, we compromise to be safe. Most people in a negotiation are driven by fear or by the desire to avoid pain. Too few are driven by their actual goals.
Whether your deadline is real and absolute or merely a line in the sand, it can trick you into believing that….
Doing a deal now is more important than getting a good deal…
What is usually misunderstood over Deadlines are that they often are…
Arbitrary, almost always flexible, and hardly ever trigger the consequences we think - or are told - they will…
What’s the next sentence: No deal is better than…
a bad deal.
Why once they understood the pattern and knew the kidnapper’s self imposed deadline they built a second step strategy…
First, we let the pressure build by stalling the negotiations until Thursday or Friday, we could cut the best deal.
And second, because you didn’t need closet to $150,000 to have a good weekend in Haiti, offering a lot, less would suffice.
How can we identify how close we were getting to their self imposed deadline?
It would be indicated by how specific the threats were that they issued.
“Give us the money or your aunt is going to die.” is an early stage threat, as the time isn’t specified.
Does increasing specificity on threats in any type of negations indicates getting closer to the real consequences at a real specified time.
To gauge the level of a particular threat, we’d pay attention to how many of the four questions - What? Who? When? and how? - were addressed.
Is it true that when people issue threats, they consciously or subconsciously create ambiguities and loopholes they fully intend to exploit?
True. As the loopholes started to close as the week progressed, and did over so over and over again in similar ways with different kidnappers, the pattern emerged.
What are the negotiations that deadlines can play into your hands:
Car dealers are prone to give you the best price near the end of the month, when their transaction are assessed. And corporate salespeople work on quarterly basis and are most vulnerable as the quarter comes to a close;
Deadlines cut both ways. Cohen may well have been nervous about what his boss would say if he left Japan without an agreement…
But it’s also true that Cohen counterparts wouldn’t have won if he’d left without a deal. That’s the key: When negotiation is over for one side, it’s over for the other too.
Moore discovered that when negotiators tell their counterparts about their deadline, they get better deals.
It’s true. First, by revealing your cutoff you reduce the risk of impasse. And second, when an opponent knows your deadline, he’ll get to the real deal- and concession-making more quickly.
Is it false that: Even in something as simple as merely splitting $10 of “found” money, there is no consensus of what constitutes a “fair” or “rational” split
No, it’s true. There’s no consensus of what constitutes a “fair” or “rational” split.
Why approaching a negotiation thinking that the other guy thinks like you, you’re wrong…
That’s not empathy, that’s projection.
What is the most powerful word in negotiations is…
“Fair”
Now look at this with the Ultimatum Game in mind. Why Williams wasn’t angry because of the money; it was the perceived unfairness that pissed him off?
He didn’t complain about his contract until Aladin became a blockbuster, and then he and his agent went loud and long about how they got ripped off.
Unfairness is a powerful motivation: You may no trust Iran, but its moves are pretty clear evidence that rejecting perceived…
unfairness. even at substantial cost, is a powerful motivation.
3 ways that people drop this F-bomb, only one is positive:
1- Judo-defensive move that destabilizes the other side. This manipulation usually takes the form of someone like “We just want what’s fair”
2- More nefarious one. In this one, your counterpart will basically accuse tou of being dense or dishonest by saying, “We’ve given you a fair offer.” It’s a terrible little jab meant to distract your attention and manipulate you into giving in.
3- Chris’s favorite, positive and constructive. It sets the stage for honest and emphatic negotiation.
“I want you to feel you are being treated fairly at all times. So please stop me any time if you feel I’m being unfair, and we’ll address it.”
How to answer the nefarious drop of the fair-bomb:
Mirror the “F” that has just been lobbed to you.
“Fair?” “It seems like you’re ready to provide the evidence that supports that.”
Which alludes to opening their books or otherwise handing over information that will either contradict their claim to fairness or give you more data to work with than you had previously.
What does a good babysitter sell, really? It’s not child care exactly, but a relaxed evening. A furnace sales person? Cozy rooms for family time.
Know the emotional drivers and you can frame the benefits of any deal in language that will resonate.
The Prospect Theory
The theory argues that people are drawn to sure things over probabilities, even when the probability is a better choice. That’s called the Certainty Effect.
And people will take greater risks to avoid losses than to achieve gains. That’s called Loss Aversion
Crucial lesson about loss aversion:
To get real leverage, you have to persuade them that they have something concrete to lose if the deal falls through…
