Monthly Archives: June 2011

It is true that if you are feeling anxious about a negotiation you are unlikely to achieve your best outcome. Our behaviours are the product of our internal “state” of mind. This state of mind is usually the result of pre-programmed filters which determine how we experience the world. We know for example that if a fire is coming towards us then that represents danger and we should run away. If someone extends their hand by way of greeting we know we should reciprocate in order to shake hands.

These filters can be very helpful, as in the above examples, but they are also capable of giving us a distorted vision of reality which is not helpful at all. So, if we are running a programme which tells us that “negotiation is always difficult and I always do badly. I want it to be over as soon as possible”, then that anxious state will create problems for us. Our bidding will be tentative, our manner uncertain, we may stammer and sweat. The other side will pick up this “anxious” state (consciously or otherwise) and start to push us around. It’s all downhill from there.

If there is a “Nervous Nellie”, as the third article here puts it (knowledge@wharton) in the team then that can affect the attitude of everybody in the team. It depends who has the strongest state. If the Nervous Nellie has the strongest state then they will influence everyone around them. So it’s important to pair such people with those who have a stronger, more assured state of mind…

The good thing is that we can choose to change our state. This is because the brain doesn’t recognise the difference between a “real” programme […]

If you want to negotiate, it’s always important to “close the deal” when there is an opportunity to do so.

If you don’t you risk the possibility that you may lose the deal or receive less value than was initially on the table. There may be an element of this going on in the Fabregas transfer saga. If a deal drags on the other side can suffer buyer’s remorse, or come to value the asset they are negotiating for differently. Or economic factors may come to influence the other side’s thinking differently, or they may develop other deal priorities (Sanchez? Rossi?). Judging by the public statements coming from Barcelona it may be that they do now value the player differently than they did last year, when there was clearly an opportunity to close the deal which Arsenal rejected.

Of course last year Arsenal didn’t want to negotiate, but you have to think these stances through to the end. If a player really doesn’t want to stay at a club then that will be reflected in his performances, and arguably that happened with Fabregas last season. Now when it sounds like they might be prepared to consider a deal, Arsenal find that the ground has shifted and it may not be so easy to close the deal at a price that they want. Closure is a fluid moment – it’s generally best to bottle that moment and get the best deal done whilst you can.

Having read the article ‘They Don’t Negotiate’: Why Young Women College Graduates Are Still Paid Less Than Men (huffingtonpost.com) I still maintain the view that essentially women have as much potential as men to be good at negotiation.

As a negotiation trainer I encounter lots of women who are good at the “soft skills” of negotiation – listening, exploring and focusing on common ground. But I also see some women who are great at so-called “push behaviour”, which you use in negotiating to pursue your own agenda.

It may be that some women are held back as negotiators by perceived barriers as to how they should behave or what jobs they should aspire to. However, we are all capable of influencing our “state” in a positive manner in preparation for a negotiation. We can break up our normal patterns of thought and (for example) introduce a more positive and ambitious mindset. And if women are able to do that then they have no less potential than any man to negotiate successfully.

Will a further bail-out for Greece change the negotiation dynamics with the financial markets over the Euro? Only if it results in the financial markets feeling that Greece can pay its debts and that the EU can afford to sustain its current levels of support until Greece does. An absolutely critical part of this would be for existing Banks who are debtors to agree to the “voluntary” re-scheduling of their debts, to give Greece some breathing space. Without this any further bailout package will not seem credible.

It will be interesting to see if Banks are prepared to step up in this way on a voluntary basis. Generally, asking someone if they would like to give you what you want is not an effective way of bidding. It’s like the difference between saying “I want x” and “Would you mind giving me x?”. The former has much more impact. The problem for the Eurozone of course is that it can’t force debtors to participate – any such compulsory re-scheduling would itself be deemed to constitute an event of default.

In any event, all of this only becomes relevant if the Greek Parliament votes to pass the latest austerity package. Is that certain? One problem may be that local Greeks are very conscious that there doesn’t seem to be much of a “win” for them in complying with the austerity programme demanded by the Eurozone countries as the price for further bail-out assistance. Often if people feel there is no prospect of a “win” in a negotiation, they start to play lose-lose, saying to themselves “if I can’t win I’m going to make sure that you lose too”.

If it was up to the man-on the […]