Skip to main content

Frequently Asked Tactical Questions



-        Should I ever state my acceptable range?
-        Should I ever tell the other side my real bottom line?
-        The other part opens with and unreasonable number. Should I counter with equally unreasonable number?
  • Never state a monetary range of what you're willing to pay, this would give away your reservation price. You can only mention a range at the end of the negotiation process to discourage the other side from pushing you beyond it.  
  • You can only reveal the bottom line once you've reached it (or are about to). Is is important you say it firmly for the other side to tae you seriously.
  • If the other side opens with an incredibly unreasonable number, there is many options in front of you:
-        Make a joke in order to tell them you won't even consider the offer
-        State that the number is unreasonable, talk about interests, explain your perspective on the deal, discuss and then you might suggest a number that you justify reasonable and that if favorable to you.

-        Is it ever acceptable to bid against myself to make two moves in a row?
-        Is it smart or fair to bluff?
-        In a complex deal, is it better to reach agreement issue by issue or wait until the end?
-        Is it better to deal with difficult or easy issues first?
-        What if there is an unexpected turn in the road before or after an agreement?
  • It is not a good idea to bid against yourself. If the situation is stuck and the only way to make progress is for you to move again, you should mention your awareness of what you are doing, make the next move to show your good faith to a reasonable number. Explain your reasoning and ask the other side to do the same, if they don’t, you’ve reach an impass and you should talk about interests and new creative options.
  • It is okay to bluff, however, you must make sure what you bring to the table has real value.
  • Every deal is different. Sometimes, it is better to start with difficult issues and sometimes the reverse is better. However, think about aiming for tentative agreements, one issue at the time. That way, the creation of value can happen.
  • Unexpected developments might endanger potential agreements or undermine deals already made. You should be flexible, because “what goes around comes around”.

-        What happens when you pit a collaborative negotiator against a positional bard bargain?
-        How should I respond if the other side seeks to change something in its offer after a deal has been reached? 
-        What should I do when the negotiator on the other side has a temper tantrum?
-        It is appropriate to negotiate over the telephone (/email)?
-        How should I react when the other side challenges my credentials, status, or authority to make a deal?
  • The propositional bargainer wants to win at the other side's expense and expects all the compromises to come from the other side. The negotiation will be very hard with this type of individual.
  • The collaborative negotiator should try to “convert” the hard bargainer to create some value in the deal.
  • If the other side (that might be winning) wants to change the deal after it is made. If they want to change one aspect they need to be willing to change other aspects that you might want.
  • If you’re facing a negotiator with “a temper tantrum” try to help them regain control. 
  • If the other side is lying, require documentation and insist on enforcement mechanisms such as penalty for non-compliance or positive incentives for early performance).
  • It is always better to negotiate face to face. you can pick-up on non-verbal cues. Research indicates that people are less likely to lie in person. It’s still possible to negotiate by email or telephone but it is not ideal


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Salt Harbor: Confidential Information for Brims

           This negotiation situation is about the sell of a parcel next to a bed and breakfast inn. The parcel belongs to Brims, a highly regarded and fast growing chain of coffee shops. The objective for both parties was to sell/buy the parcel for the best price possible so each party won’t resort to its BATNA.             If Brims and Easterly (Bed and breakfast) do not manage to come to an agreement, the dispute would end up in court which would be very costly and there is not guarantee whether which party would end up winning the case.             In this situation I was Brim’s manager and by lack of time, I guess, I didn’t properly understand the stake of the situation (out of the confidential information). I understood that the opening of my shop would be delayed as long as no agreement between the two companies was found and ...
1 comment
Read more

The Cinnamon case: sales negotiation

The Cinnamon case: sales negotiation             For this simulation, I was the owner of Offshoot Intermediaries Limited, a family-run enterprise offering drug formulations and baby-food products.             I just had been informed by one of my contacts in the government that an ordinance was going to be issued mandating the use of a specific set of ingredients in baby-foods and one of these ingredients is high-grade cinnamon.             Because of an old issue, the government wasn’t willing to extend the state subsidy of 10% for the manufacturers of baby foods who use high-grade cinnamon in their products but the day before the negotiation with the cinnamon supplier, I met the Food and Drug Authority (FDA) commissioner and could plea my case in front of him and the government council....
1 comment
Read more

EuroMouse

In this last role play, Celia and I were the EuroMouse representatives. We had the government on our side. We made the the strategy together, but the government told us that they would remain fair and that’s what they did. At the meeting 4 mayors of surrounding towns of our construction site were also present. They were angry because of the noise and increase in traffic caused by the construction site molested them. Moreover, they were upset that they had not been included in the initial negotiation (when the government sold the land to us and made profit out if it) but this wasn’t our fault, we just bought the land from the government and didn’t know that people had been expropriated from it… That’s what we explained to the mayors. The government officials chose to led the conversation. For their interest it was important that the project did go on (economical reasons). We chose to take a lot of time and patience to hear and try to understand the complaints of the mayors....
Post a Comment
Read more