Negotiating Skills Whats My Interest

Writen by Kevin Dwyer

I read earlier this year that the Palestinian Prime Minister had received support from militants to give up their weapons in exchange for government jobs. On face value it struck me as a stark example of the difference between a person's interest and position. The position of the "militants" is well publicised, their interests however, appear to be more personal. Job security providing an income to support their families is closer to their interest.

In negotiations, we often concentrate on positions rather than interests and we get a negotiation result which does not extract the greatest possible value out of the negotiation and may damage relationships.

In "Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In", a classic text about negotiating, Roger Fisher and William Ury, explain: "Your position is something you have decided upon. Your interests are what caused you to so decide." In most negotiations, defining differences in terms of positions means that at least one party will "lose" the negotiation. When a difference is defined in terms of the parties' underlying interests it is often possible to find a solution which satisfies both parties' interests.

In a negotiation, the two parties usually have two concerns. One is about the substance of the negotiation and one is about the nature of the relationship between the negotiating parties.

When a high degree of concern is expressed for the substance of the negotiation and a low degree of concern is expressed for the relationship of the parties, a "Defeat" behaviour pattern is produced. This pattern is characterised by win-lose competition, pressure, intimidation, adversarial relationships and the negotiator attempting to get as much as possible for him/her. Defeat the other party at any cost becomes the negotiator's goal

Interestingly, research shows that males favour the "Defeat" approach more than females. A testosterone induced negotiating style perhaps?

When the focus is building a compatible relationship in the hope that the negotiation will be successful, an "Accommodate behaviour pattern is produced. This pattern is characterised by efforts to promote harmony, avoidance of substantive differences, yielding to pressure to preserve the relationship and placing interpersonal relationships above the fairness of the outcome.

When a low degree of concern for both the substance of the negotiation and the relationship with the other parties is expressed, a "Withdraw" behaviour pattern is produced. This pattern is characterised by feelings of powerlessness, indifference to the outcome, resignation, surrender and taking whatever the other party is willing to concede. Withdraw and remove oneself becomes the behaviour of the negotiator.

Withdraw is a negotiating style at times seen in negotiations between parents and teenage children flexing their wings of independence. The negotiation finishes abruptly with an "I don't care - do what you want" from either party when the realisation dawns that one party can't "win".

When a moderate degree of concern for both dimensions of negotiating behaviour is expressed, "Compromise" behaviour is produced. This pattern is characterised by compromise, meeting the other party's half-way, looking for trade-offs, splitting the difference, and other half-way measures. Conflict reduction is valued over synergistic problem solving. Find an acceptable agreement is the objective of this negotiator's style.

Sometimes this style is mistakenly described as "win"-"win". From a purely personal point of view, in what I might label, "serious negotiations", accommodate is the least fulfilling negotiating style.

When a high degree of concern for both the substance of the negotiation and the relationship with the other parties is expressed, a "Collaborative" behaviour pattern is produced. This pattern is characterised by searching for common interests with the other party, problem solving behaviour and recognizing that both parties must get their needs satisfied for the outcome to be entirely successful. Collaborative behaviour and synergistic solutions are the result. Working to build a win-win outcome is the main goal of the negotiator.

When negotiating parties concentrate on interests, a collaborative style is a likely result. When negotiating parties concentrate on positions, it becomes almost impossible to have a collaborative style.

In the late eighties and early nineties, when procurement was becoming seen as an opportunity to reduce costs in the automotive industry, the concentration was on positions. The auto manufacturers demanded a reduction in supplier costs of at least ten percent. Suppliers offered less and eventually an agreement was hammered out. The result was a reduction in costs, but with variable quality and some suppliers not surviving.

In the late nineties, procurement tactics transformed to an understanding of interests. The common interests were in mutual viability. Favoured supplier status was bestowed on those suppliers willing to work together to reduce costs of the entire supply chain from design to delivery. The result has been cheaper cars, more reliable quality and more viable manufacturers.

Negotiations need not be about win-lose or even win-win. They can be about just simply "WIN"

Kevin Dwyer is Director of Change Factory. Change Factory helps organisations who do do not like their business outcomes to get better outcomes by changing people's behaviour. Businesses we help have greater clarity of purpose and ability to achieve their desired business outcomes. To learn more visit http://www.changefactory.com.au or email kevin.dwyer@changefactory.com.au ©2006 Change Factory To see more articles visit http://www.changefactory.com.au

You Dont Get What You Deserve You Get What You Negotiate

Writen by Jean Sifleet

Easier said than done. Negotiating is complicated. No one style is effective in every situation and it's important to stay focused on your objectives and remain flexible in finding ways to achieve them.

The other side will not necessarily play by your rules or behave in a reasonable way.

The ideal case situation is when both parties are clear and collaborative and work towards a win-win solution.

Positive approaches include:

-Talking about interests

-Friendly discussion of issues

-Facts, data to support position

-Problem solving, looking for alternatives, tradeoffs

-Acknowledging the other party's point of view

-Asking questions, 'What if?'

Negative approaches include:

-Making demands

-Provocative and threatening statements

-Digging into a position

-Being adversarial

Take a break -- Walk Away

If the negotiation becomes deadlocked, or the other party is unreasonable to deal with, you may need to walk away. You can't force the other party to be reasonable, and making too many concessions is not the basis for a healthy business relationship.

Involve an intermediary

Sometimes cultural or style differences make it advisable to involve an intermediary. Effective negotiation needs to be peer-to-peer. Involving an intermediary can help to bridge the differences and find the common ground or 'win-win' outcome. Be careful in your choice of intermediary. You want a deal -- not a battle.

Dealing with Adversarial Lawyers

Not all lawyers are adversarial, but the sad truth is that lawyers make more money when there's a fight. Lawyers have an economic incentive to turn amicable business relationships into protracted negotiations and even adversarial outcomes.

Here are some warning signs: Lawyer is posturing and taking positions that are obviously one-sided and trigger protracted negotiations in order to get to a position of reasonable balance for all parties.

Lawyer demands last-minute concessions, price reductions or other major changes just before the deal is to be completed.

Lawyer uses massive boilerplate documents, 80% of which are incomprehensible and 90% are irrelevant to the deal. Adversarial negotiations are unlikely to produce a good deal and business relationship. The deal needs to be fair to all parties to work well. The party that feels unfairly treated usually finds a way to get even.

To avoid having your deal derailed by such lawyer tactics, I recommend that you keep adversarial lawyers out of the negotiations.

I recommend that:

The parties draft a term sheet which is the essence of their agreement on one page. (Answer the questions: Who? What? Where? When? And how much?)

Each party reviews the term sheet with his/her respective advisor and revises the term sheet based on such input. (Basically, use your lawyer as a coach and do the negotiating yourself.)

The parties discuss the agreement and revise the term sheet. Then, instruct the lawyers to write up your agreement, without gobs of boilerplate, and include a provision to mediate any dispute. (One lawyer should draft and the other review.)

With this approach, you'll get a deal that is fair and workable and an agreement that you understand. The parties should be able to track from the term sheet to the agreement easily.

In conclusion, negotiating is situational. To get the outcome you want, you need to adapt to the situation.

Jean Sifleet is a practical and experienced business attorney whose career spans many years in large multi-national corporations and includes three successful entrepreneurial ventures. Jean has extensive experience in dealing with intellectual property matters in the large and small companies and as a small business owner. She has authored numerous books and publications on avoiding legal pitfalls in doing business. This article is excerpted from her new book, Advantage IP – Profit from Your Great Ideas (Infinity 2005). For more information, Jean's website is http://www.smartfast.com

Business Debt Resolution Creates Solution

Writen by Herman Drost

Going to court because a vendor or supplier did not make good on their promise can create immense cash flow problems for a business. In addition, it could result in lawsuits, liens and even bankruptcy. However by choosing debt resolution, business owners can bypass the court system, saving their company a mountain of difficulties."

When does a business owner need a debt resolution professional?

"When the company is in a dispute with someone, when all lines of communication are poor and when it doesn't look like things will be resolved," says Peter Robben, a business debt resolution specialist. "By bringing in a third party 'mediator,' the tedious legal jargon and time consuming procedures associated with litigation are eliminated."

Millions of lawsuits take place each year in the U.S. judicial system; it could take months, even years before a court case ever comes to trial. Attorney's fees can run from $10,000 on upwards to $100,000 or more, causing business owners who settle their differences in court to become financially devastated. A bank levy can be imposed on business accounts or liens placed on property and/or other assets. As a result, litigation is often accredited with bringing about a downward spiral of a business rather than the vital restoration of one.

Debt Mediation listens to both sides of a case with the goal of creating an acceptable agreement for both parties. Due to the fact that debt negotiation is so effective in focusing on the resolutions of problems, more and more businesses nationwide are including arbitration clauses in their contracts. Debt negotiation settles disputes on a contingency basis. This means there is no fee in the unlikely event a settlement cannot be reached. Additionally, there is no billing by the hour and no charge for administrative services. What's more, debt resolution takes the dispute out of the Courts and public records so that no one knows there ever was a dispute in the first place, thus protecting the business and its credibility.

Companies involved in disputes of $2,000 to $80,000 can find relief with a debt resolution counselor that can not only save the business time and money; it can save the future enterprise as a whole.

WeSolveDebt.com, is a third-party mitigation and Business Debt Resolution Company that has helped growing numbers of companies resolve legal issues out of court, saving countless hours and dollars. Receive a FREE SPECIAL REPORT or Free Business Consultation by visiting http://www.WeSolveDebt.com

What Are The Four Types Of Negotiating Outcomes

Writen by Tristan Loo

Negotiating outcomes are the types of results that can happen at the end of a negotiation. All negotiations end up with one out of four possible outcomes: one party wins and the other loses, both parties lose, they get stuck in a stalemate, or both end up winning. Obviously, the goal in a cooperative negotiation is for both parties to walk away with their needs being satisfied. Familiarize yourself with the four different negotiating outcomes and make it your goal to aim for a mutually-beneficial outcome.

Lose-Lose

In this type of outcome, ego's come into play which thwart the negotiating process. Both sides dig into their positions and are unwilling to compromise with each other. In the end, both parties end up losing in the deal. Resentment exists between both parties as a result of the outcome and it is unlikely that they will ever negotiate with each other again.

Example

A labor union refuses a contract offer and goes on strike until demands are met. The company refuses to give into to this bullying-type technique and digs into their position of not budging. In the end, the strikers go back to work without a raise and with lost income and the company loses a large amount of sales revenue, and the consumer loses because the company must raise prices to pay for its losses.

Win-Lose

In this type of outcome, one side wins and the other side loses. There is no compromise with a win-lose outcome. It's a one-side takes all battle with one side getting all their needs satisfied and the other side getting nothing. While the side that wins may be very happy about the outcome; the losing side has a high level of resentment over the deal because they did not have any of their needs met. This usually results in a end to any future negotiations and a termination of the relationship.

Examples

A street brawl is the ultimate in win-lose negotiations. One side wins by use of physical violence and the losing side has no choice but to submit to defeat.

A civil court battle is win-lose. A judge or jury decides winner and loser based on available evidence. One side wins punitive or compensatory damages and the other side loses that money.

Stalemate

In this type of outcome, neither side wins or loses and after a long negotiating session, both sides are at the exact same place that they started off at. This is a result of not being able to deal with interests and only positions. Stalemates happen when both sides aggressively defend their positions and neither side is able to make the other side budge.

Example

You go to buy a car and the salesman quotes you a price that is too high. You are unwilling to budge on your price and the salesman is unwilling to budge on his quote. You then walk out of the dealership and go find another one to deal with and the salesman moves on to the next customer.

Win-Win

This is the type outcome that you strive to achieve when you Street Negotiate. In this type of outcome, both sides walk away with their interests and needs being met. Both sides leave the negotiating table satisfied because they came out of the negotiation with more than they had started with. Relationships are preserved because both parties cooperated with each other in determining a fair solution to the problem. This outcome also bolsters trust for future negotiations between the two parties because they have established a positive relationship.

Example

A hostage taker agrees with the police negotiator to surrender and release his hostages. In return, the negotiator agrees that the SWAT team won't bust through the doors and kill the hostage taker. In this example, the hostage taker gets his needs of survival taken care of and the negotiator gets his needs of ending a potentially deadly confrontation without any bloodshed satisfied.

Key Points

The four possible outcomes to a negotiation are: lose-lose, win-lose, stalemate, and win-win.

Set your goals on having a win-win outcome in all of your negotiations. A win-win outcome is where both negotiating parties walk away with having both of their needs met.

About The Author

Tristan Loo is an experienced negotiator and an expert in conflict resolution. He uses his law enforcement experience to train others in the prinicples of defusing conflict and reaching agreements. Visit his website at http://www.streetnegotiation.com

Everything Is Negotiable Including Sex Learn To Do It Well

Writen by Dorothy M. Neddermeyer, PhD

It is usually assumed that those who possess the greatest talent, dedication and education are the ones who achieve the rewards in life. Life can disillusion those who hold that belief. The 'winners' are usually people who are not only competent, but also are willing to negotiate what they want. Negotiation, however, is not theirs alone. An increased awareness of what negotiation is and how to use it to get what you want will help put you in the 'winner' category.

Negotiation is an integral part of our lives. It occurs between neighbors, associates, friends, in-laws, and lovers. You probably have negotiated for such items as an increase in salary, more office space, time off work, transfer, time alone, or the price of your home and car. You negotiate nearly everything you do in life. Therefore, learn to do it well. Learn to be an effective negotiator and enhance the quality of your life and relationships—on and off the job.

In the broadest sense, we all want the same things (albeit in different degrees): prestige, freedom, money, justice, status, love, security, and recognition. Identifying or knowing what one wants is critical. Identifying what the other person wants allows for the beginning of a successful negotiation.

Negotiation can be considered a science in that it is a field of knowledge and endeavor. It focuses on the reconciliation of two or more sets of individual needs to the mutual benefit of the collaborators. Negotiation in the simplest form is the use of information (knowledge) and power (endeavor) to affect behavior within a certain framework.

When we engage in negotiation, two things are being bargained for: the issues and demands which we state openly; and our real needs, which are rarely verbalized. If you establish a reasonable guess about what the other person's needs are, you can predict, with remarkable certainty, what will transpire in any interaction.

Negotiation focuses on the reconciliation of two or more sets of individual needs to the mutual benefit of the collaborators. Three crucial elements are present in negotiation: information (knowledge), power (endeavor), and time. Misconceptions about the balance of ownership of these elements are, often the reason people fail either to initiate or conclude a negotiation. The misconceptions are manifested as perceptions of an imbalance of the elements. For example:

Information: It is perceived that the other side knows more about you and your needs than you know about them and their needs. The questions which need to be resolved are: What do they need? What am I willing to give to get what I need?

Power: It is perceived that the other side has more power and authority than you have. The questions which need to be resolved are: Do I have the skills to negotiate successfully? (In other words, can I get what I want from others?) Do I deserve to get what I want?

Time: It is perceived that the other side is not under the same kind of organizational pressure, time constraints and restrictive deadline you perceive you are under. Avoid setting up your request with the approach, "I want what I want when I want it." This instills a desire on your part to push for agreement prematurely, thus alienating the other person.

These misconceptions become obstacles to productive negotiation. You need to fully understand these three elements and analyze the impact they will have on each negotiation prior to beginning the process. There are three approaches to a negotiation:

METHOD I – I Win, You Lose (Win/Lose)

Advantages to this method are:

I get what I want when I want it

I experience a sense of power and control

I avoid making compromises

I get immediate gratification

Disadvantages to this method are:

Social isolation (alienating others)

A decreased tolerance for frustration

I get what I want at the expense of others

Individuals learn to use abusive behavior to get what they want

There is no guarantee individuals will follow through

METHOD II – I Lose, You Win (Lose/Win)

Advantages of this method are:

You get what you want when you want it

You experience a sense of power and control

You avoid making compromises

You get immediate gratification

Disadvantages of this method are:

Social isolation (alienating others)

A decreased tolerance for frustration

You get what you want at the expense of others

Individuals learn to use abusive behavior to get what they want

There is no guarantee individuals will follow through

METHOD III – I Win, You Win (Win/Win)

Advantages of this method are:

You get what you want

I get what I want

The solution is a collaborative effort

I maintain respect and integrity – You maintain respect and integrity

We both save time

We keep lines of communication open

We each know the needs of the other

Appropriate behavior is demonstrated and reinforced

Disadvantages of this method are:

I seem weak
It takes time to work through the process when someone is not accustomed to win/win negotiating

The individuals may agree to a proposed solution, but not follow through

Despite these disadvantages, Method III provides an avenue for a collaborative conclusion and therefore is the method recommended for all your negotiations.

There are six steps to win/win negotiation:

1. Identifying and Defining What is Wanted This is the critical phase when the person initiating the negotiation needs to get the other person(s) involved. Get their attention and then secure their willingness to enter into problem solving.
2. Generating Possible Solutions In this phase, the key is to generate a variety of solutions. Encourage each individual to generate at least one solution.
3. Evaluating the Alternative Solutions Now it is time to evaluate the various solutions. Generally the solutions are narrowed to two or three that seem best by eliminating those that are not acceptable to either the initiator of the negotiation or the other person(s).
4. Agree on the Best Solution Once the solutions have been narrowed down to two, the step of finding a final solution will be easier than most people think. When Steps 1 through 3 have been followed and the exchange of ideas and reactions have been open, honest and direct, most people will be willing to accept either solution. Pros and cons can be listed for each solution and the solution with the least cons accepted.
5. Implementing the Decision After a decision is reached, there is frequently a need to spell out in some detail exactly how the decision will be implemented. All participants need to address themselves to 'Who will do what, by when? In a business environment, it is also suggested that notes be kept about commitments to insure adherence, particularly if implementation is delayed.
6. Following Up With an Evaluation Not all initial decisions in the win/win method turn out to be good ones. Consequently, the initiator of the negotiation needs to check back with the others to ask them if they are still happy with the decision.

If you have something difficult to negotiate—an emotional issue or a concrete item that can be stated numerically, such as price, interest rate, or salary—deal with it at the end of a negotiation, after the other person has made a substantial expenditure of energy and time. There is a direct ratio between the extent of investment and one's willingness to create a win/win negotiation.

People are usually most eager to negotiate when they perceive that you can help them or when they want to avoid something undesirable. In an adversary relationship (seller and buyer, interviewer and interviewee, contractual negotiation, etc.) if you think I might help or hurt you, it is important that your perception remains until I get something, such as a concession on your part that truly benefits the negotiation or our relationship.

In an adversarial relationship, Steps 2 and 3 are done prior to the initiation of the negotiation. It is important to take into consideration the possible needs of the other(s) so as to generate as many acceptable alternatives as possible. In an adversarial relationship, once the negotiation is ended, Step 6 is seldom needed because the conclusion is usually acted on by immediate transaction or contractual commitment.

As in learning any new skill, you need to develop the self-assurance that you are capable of performing the task. Since negotiation is a complex and highly skilled endeavor, it is suggested that you begin by practicing a segment until you feel comfortable. Begin by eliminating your misconceptions and replacing them with the concepts of a win/win negotiation. Then practice the steps of negotiation on a simple issue with someone you respect. The more you practice, the easier it will become. Soon you can begin negotiating more complex issues and then move on to negotiating with adversaries.

Remember, negotiation is an art; therefore, it is achievable through practice and endeavor. Once you learn it, you too will be a winner.

Dorothy M. Neddermeyer, PhD, Entrepreneur, personal and professional Life Coach has 25 years experience. She has consulted to Fortune 500 CEO's, Vice Presidents, business owners and people of all walks of life. http://www.drdorothy.net

The Top Nine Things A Doctor Needs To Know When Negotiating His Employment Contract

Writen by Gerry Oginski

The 9 Biggest Employment Concerns For A New Doctor

1. Have they had associates before? How many? How long did they stay? Why did they leave?

2. Were they forced to leave? Was it voluntary? Was it mutually agreeable? Was there any bad blood?

3. Do they have a restrictive covenant for the physician employees? (A restrictive covenant is simply a promise from you that if you leave the Group for any reason, then you will not be able to practice medicine for a specific time within a specific location.)

4. Has the Group ever had to go to Court to litigate a restrictive covenant? Why? This is a touchy question. By raising it, the Group might construe such a question as a feeler for whether they would ever go after you if you violated your restrictive covenant.

"Why would you raise the issue if you never intend to violate our restriction?" "Just curious, I guess," may not pass muster. Instead, simply tell them that you want to know if there have been any employment issues that have arisen in the Group that ended up in litigation. This way your question stays under the radar and nobody gets the wrong idea about your question.

5. Is anyone in the Group currently involved in a malpractice case?

6. Was anyone in the Group previously involved in a case?Was there a settlement or verdict against the group?

7. Do these guys (or girls) testify as experts in malpractice or accident cases?

8. Have any disputes with partners ever resulted in litigation?

9. Has your Group ever dissolved and re-formed with new partners?

The answers to these questions will help you analyze whether this is the right medical group for you to join. Remember, the more information you have before you sign, the better off you'll be during your negotiations and after you sign on the dotted line.

Attorney Oginski has been in practice for 17 years as a trial lawyer practicing exclusively in the State of New York. He has recently published a book that will help every doctor in residency and every doctor changing jobs to understand their employment contract. Take a look at his useful website, http://www.mdcontract.com for more information.

Over the last ten years, Gerry has developed a niche practice helping residents and physicians who are changing jobs by evaluating and negotiating their physician employment contracts. Gerry can be reached at http://www.lawmed1@optonline.net, or 516-487-8207. All inquiries are free and totally confidential.

Negotiation Tip Never Say No

Writen by Dr. Gary S. Goodman

I have been going back and forth, exchanging emails with a potential seminar sponsor a world away.

And while it's very possible that we may never do business, I won't give in to that initial perception.

If I've learned anything in a few decades of professional speaking, management consulting and publishing, it's this:

"There is a way to make every deal!"

Don't get me wrong. If someone approaches me to do a program 12,000 miles away, and expects me to charge only for the single hour or day that the speech consumes, then I'll have to decline.

But I won't really say "no."

I might say, "I'd love to do this program and help you out, but I'm going to need more billable time once I arrive, to justify the four days that will be consumed in traveling to and from. So, if you can keep me busy with paid engagements for a number of days, let's see what we can put together!"

An outright declination leaves them only with a problem: Where are they going to find a capable presenter?

But my response offers a solution. It entices my counterpart to think, "How could we do that?"

In other words, it generates a win-win situation, instead of lose-lose.

This has worked for me, and it has made my hosts very happy.

So, try this out!

Dr. Gary S. Goodman, President of Customersatisfaction.com, is a popular keynote speaker, management consultant, and seminar leader and the best-selling author of 12 books, including Reach Out & Sell Someone® and Monitoring, Measuring & Managing Customer Service, and the audio program, "The Law of Large Numbers: How To Make Success Inevitable," published by Nightingale-Conant. He is a frequent guest on radio and television, worldwide. A Ph.D. from USC's Annenberg School, a Loyola lawyer, and an MBA from the Peter F. Drucker School at Claremont Graduate University, Gary offers programs through UCLA Extension and numerous universities, trade associations, and other organizations in the United States and abroad. He holds the rank of Shodan, 1st Degree Black Belt in Kenpo Karate. He is headquartered in Glendale, California, and he can be reached at (818) 243-7338 or at: gary@customersatisfaction.com.

For information about coaching, consulting, training, books, videos and audios, please go to: http://www.customersatisfaction.com

Top Speakers Money Making Tip Quotask For More And Youll Get Morequot

Writen by Dr. Gary S. Goodman

Who says higher education isn't worth the price of admission, especially graduate school?

When I was reading a skinny little book of behavioral research findings as a Ph.D. candidate, I came across about 20 true gems of wisdom all in one place.

One of my favorites pertains to persuasion, and it applies to both selling and to negotiating, and by putting it to use I have done very well, thank you.

Simply put, this nugget says: "If you ask for more, you'll get more; and if you ask for less, you'll get less."

Doesn't this fly in the face of those who promote modesty, who maintain that if you ask for little, just a pittance, you'll be less likely to be rejected? Aren't the meek supposed to inherit the earth?

Yes, this notion does disagree with those who would take a more humble path.

Just as that senior character in the play and movie, "The Producers," proclaimed: "If you've got it; flaunt it!" this adage could say: "If you're good, ask for twice or three times what you'll accept!"

I recall doing this when I was negotiating a video tape deal with a division of CBS. Literally, I asked for triple what I would have accepted for the one-day shooting, simply as a fun and provocative negotiating gambit.

You can imagine how stunned I was when my counterpart thought for about fifteen seconds and replied, "I believe we can do that!"

Try this for yourself.

If they really want you or the value you're offering, they won't flatly reject your request, and some will even take you up on it!

Best-selling author of 12 books and more than 900 articles, Dr. Gary S. Goodman is considered "The Gold Standard"--the foremost expert in sales development, customer service, and telephone effectiveness. Top-rated as a speaker, seminar leader, and consultant, his clients extend across the globe and the organizational spectrum, from the Fortune 1000 to small businesses. He can be reached at: gary@customersatisfaction.com.

Finding The Real Decision Maker

Writen by Andy Szebeni

The MAN is the person or group of people with the Money, Authority and Need - the decision maker with the ability to say "yes" to your proposition.

Many salespeople spend endless hours with people who can't say "yes". The can't because they have neither their hands on the purse strings, the authority or the position to understand what their company or organisation really needs.

There are few situations in sales that are more complex and easier to botch than the unreachable committee. In no other area will your sensitivity to small clues and the subtle nuances of power be better rewarded.

Organisations have purchasing procedures that involve several people, much time, more paperwork, and they all move through clearly defined and tidy channels. That's the face the organisation shows to the world, and it has the paperwork in its files to prove that everything has been done according to their books.

In reality, though, very little is done according to their book, and the real decisions are made outside the tidy channels. The paperwork to justify those decisions is then created after the event.

Flexibility is vital in these situations. Sticking to the rules may jeopardise your success!

The gnomes in the back room are insecure, and jealous of the power they wield at the whim of the committee. Make the gnome feel important. Never let a gnome suspect that you're anything but delighted that you can work with him instead of whoever has the title and the official authority.

You have faith in the value and importance of your offering to that organisation. You need that faith, but don't let it blind you to the fact that most of the unreachable committee will be too involved with their own pet projects to care very much about yours.

Unless you can somehow reach the unreachable committee and sell it on your proposition (and by definition that's impossible, or at least impractical), you probably need the co-operation of the gnome to close that organisation. Keep in mind from the first moment you think about selling to them.

Not all organisations are big enough to have gnomes but you will probably see many of the gnome character traits in people in smaller organisations. They are often secretaries or junior staff who may be explicitly tasked with the job of keeping salespeople at bay. And that requires a whole separate set of skills....

Andy Szebeni is a sales trainer and director at A&P. He helps people involved in the sales process to win more business and generate more customers. To find free resources and learn more go to http://www.a-and-p.com.

Dont Be Afraid Of Silence

Writen by Mark Harrison

In any conversation with two or more people, there is a tendency to want to talk all the time to fill any awkward silences or gaps that appear in a conversation.

However, if you think of the conversations that you have with your closest friends or family, you will notice that there isn't the same need to fill these gaps, as silences between you are comfortable. This is generally because you know the other person and the type of character that they are.

Now, if we change this scenario to the sales process you will see that it is a completely different feeling to the one above. Suddenly silence is your worst enemy, the one thing to be avoided during negotiations, the realisation that you are losing the sale.

Well actually, that last statement is completely wrong!

Because a person does not say too much during negotiations does not mean that you are losing the sale. Yes, silence can be awkward to some but to those of you who want to win, silence can be your best friend.

During the negotiations, you will ask your customer a number of open questions and that is absolutely the right thing to do. However once you have asked the question, DO NOT fill the space! Resist the temptation to put words into their mouth.

In other words:

"Ask your open question and then say absolutely nothing until they have replied"

No matter how awkward it becomes or how uncomfortable it may seem, leave your customer to reply. If it takes 5 minutes then so be it. They MUST be allowed to reply in their own time without any help from you.

The reason I am pushing this point is that customers (and people in general) do not like silence. They particularly do not like long silences and they feel that they have to fill the space up with words. Before you know it they have committed to all sorts of things.

So, don't be afraid of the silence and let your customers talk their way into your sale.

Mark Anthony Harrison is a salesman. He is Head of Sales for the UK division of a US investment bank. He also lectures on sales development and management theory. To find out more visit him at http://www.managing2success.com

Barter The Electronic Handshake

Writen by John C. Moore

Business owners are always looking for ways to lower expenses. Bartering allows you to build your profit into your expense and conserve your cash flow. It's just one more tool to use to increase the chances of your company's success. You gain more customers in the process because these are not people that you would have normally done business with.

You have more to gain than just new customers, once you've bartered successfully with another business owner, you open yourself up to a new business relationship that can help your company grow for years to come.

Bartering online makes it easy to approach companies that you may never have thought of doing business with. Joining an online barter club is a smart and simple way to find business owners in your area willing to barter for goods or services you require.

Some companies deal with barter currency, others charge membership or transaction fees and some provide their service at no cost. The best suggestion I can offer is to shop around and decide what is right for your company.

Whatever barter site you decide to deal with should provide you with ample information on how their barter system works and informative pages for people who may be new to the barter world. If you are unsure of anything, it doesn't hurt to ask questions before making the decision to join. How quickly and accurately they respond is a good indication of how your concerns would be addressed as a member in the future.

Many business owners who enjoy bartering are not just members of one organization; you can join a few and start weeding out the ones that don't seem to be working for you.

Be leery of hidden fees. Although a company may state that there is only a one-time membership fee, as a member you may still have to pay an annual fee or a percentage per transaction.

Good communication is the key to bartering successfully and a declined trade shouldn't discourage you from contacting other business owners. Be realistic in the value of services you are offering and what you are seeking in return.

Remember that your success does not solely depend on the company that you decide to join. You need to remain active in pursuing trades because if little or no effort is put forth, then your results will be of no accomplishment. If you pursue all possible leads, you will gain all the benefits and rewards that bartering brings.

John C. Moore is the Co-Editor of http://www.U-Exchange.com, a worldwide barter website dedicated in providing business owners a variety of ways to barter services and goods at no cost. He is also the Co-Author of Barter 101 an informative guide for those who are new to bartering online.

No One Ever Wants To Give Cash Back You Can Profit

Writen by Don Doman

I learned this technique from an ancient Umatic (3/4 inch) video cassette. It was produced to assist car dealerships in getting the most money from trade-in sales. I don't know if car dealerships still teach this, but I've never had it fail me, yet.

Here is how it works in the video. Someone wants a thousand dollars for their trade-in. It's worth a thousand dollars, but you don't want to pay them a thousand dollars. You only want to pay them six hundred dollars, which they have already turned down. You let them see you think about it and then you pull your money out of your pocket. Into their hand, while counting, you put a one hundred dollar bill, then another, then another, then another . . . you hesitate . . . you slowly give them one more hundred dollar bill . . . and then add one more hundred dollar bill, and stop. You think about it and then say something like, "No, I'm sorry I know it's worth more than that, but that's all I can afford to pay." You have placed them in a predicament. They have six hundred dollars in hand. Ready money. Hard cash. You reach out to take it back. What do you think they do? No one ever, ever, ever wants to give back money. They pull it towards themselves. In that one little action you've made the deal. You just bought their trade-in for six hundred dollars and gave yourself a 40% discount.

The first time I used this technique was to buy a gold necklace for my wife. I slowly played out the money and bought the necklace for my price. I've done this for over twenty years from antique stores and car lots to negotiating tables. The technique works well with variations and for all kinds of transactions.

Years ago, I needed to update my video production studio. I saw an ad in a professional video magazine for a complete television studio: two cameras/recorders, two video tape recorders and a controller for editing. They were a few years old, but in tip top condition. They were being offered for about ten percent of their original price. This was a super deal at $21,000. The ad also mentioned O.B.O (or best offer). I knew I could deal with this. I made arrangements to fly from Washington State to Texas. The producer picked me up at the airport and took me to his studio and showed me the equipment. We then went to a restaurant for lunch on the way back to the airport. The equipment was in great condition. It was a super deal. I asked him for his best price. He gave it to me: $16,000. I told him that was a great price, a fair price, and worth every penny, and I was sure that my partners would agree to that when I explained about the quality of the machines when I got back. I then mentioned that I had a money order with me for a price that I was authorized to grant right then, but it was much less than the value of the video equipment. I pushed it over to him with an apology. It was four thousand less than his best price. The money order stayed in Houston. The video equipment went to Washington.

The reason this technique works is because people know how hard it is to find someone who wants to buy what they have, and once they have cash in hand, or a money order, they just can't turn it away. It's easier to complete the deal then it is to turn it down . . . even if it means making a little less.

Author Don Doman: Don is a published author of books for small business, corporate video producer, and owner of Ideas and Training (http://www.ideasandtraining.com), which provides business training products. Don also owns and Human Resources Radio (http://www.humanresourcesradio.com), which provides business training programs and previews 24-hours a day.

Conflict Dont Just Fight It Manage It

Writen by Eric Garner

Conflict is an ever-present reality whenever people work together. It can manifest itself in differences of view, differences of opinion, differences of personality, and differences of interest. But conflict doesn't have to be destructive. If the right options are chosen to handle conflict – either as a strategy or as a tactical choice – the result can be of huge benefit to both sides. These are the 7 options you have.

1. No Deal. A no-deal outcome to a conflict means that the status quo is confirmed and nothing changes. No-deal is rarely a successful end to a conflict unless during discussions it becomes clear there is no advantage for you in continuing. No-deal, in the sense of walkaway power, can also be used tactically at any stage of the proceedings. To make sure you are not disadvantaged if your bluff is called when you threaten "No deal!", make sure you have a good second-best BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) to fall back on.

2. I Win, You Lose. The "I win you lose" approach to conflict is also known as the World War One solution. At the end of World War One, the victorious Allies decided that, such were the horrors of the war, the defeated Germans should be humiliated and never again allowed to threaten their neighbours. The denigrating peace terms were completely one-sided but, as in all win-lose solutions, the losing side harboured deep resentment. It was only a matter of time before resentment led to a desire for revenge and the outbreak of a further war in 1939. When you use "win-lose" on others, you encourage them to find ways to use "win-lose" back on you.

3. I Lose, You Win. The "I lose, you win" approach to conflict should never be considered as a strategy. This is the route of appeasement, a quiet life and letting others have their way: sooner or later they will come back for more.

The story is told of a newcomer to an African village who became frightened by wolves at night so he threw them some antelope meat to appease them. The next morning he had the whole pack at his door.

"We've proved it again and again, That if once you have paid him the Dane-Geld; You never get rid of the Dane." (Rudyard Kipling)

4. Win At All Costs. Win-at-all-costs is a negotiating strategy that is based on the belief that you are not responsible for the conflict and therefore will not budge an inch to the other side. You must be seen to win.

A simple demonstration of win-at-all-costs thinking is the £5 auction game. A group of people are invited to bid for a £5 note, starting at 50p and working their way up. Naturally, the bidding is brisk up to the £4.50 mark. But, more often than not, the bidding will pass the £5.00 mark and go higher. Winning now matters more than the prize itself!

5. Compromise. Although the end result of many negotiations is a coming together of positions and a settlement somewhere in the middle of extremes, compromise should not be a pre-planned strategy. This is because...

- it encourages a spirit of concession

- the other side will interpret your concessions as weakness and try to push you further

- negotiation is not about trying to be nice to one another

- your case may merit better than a compromise; their case may merit worse.

6. Arbitration. Going to a third party is often suggested to resolve a negotiation stalemate but it should never be considered as an alternative to negotiations in the first place. If you're tempted to resolve all your differences through a third party, first remember this Indian fable.

As two otters were standing on the banks of the river Ganges, a great fish came swimming by. The first otter dived in but, unable to overpower it, begged the second otter for help. He too dived in and together they brought the fish to shore. Then they began to quarrel as to who should have it. A jackal came up to see what all the noise was about and they asked him to decide the case. The jackal cut off the fish's head and tail and said: "I divide the spoils equally" and gave the first otter the head and the second otter the tail and ran off himself with the middle part.

"Stop," shouted the otters, "you've taken the only part worth having." "I can't help that," said the jackal. "When you call in a lawyer, you have to pay his fee. You should have settled things together."

7. Win-Win. Win-win is the only strategy worth pursuing in negotiations. Just because the other side wins as well as you does not mean that your gain is any less. Win-win encourages constructive conflict: the belief that to come out on top does not only happen by destroying the opposition.

"It is as inappropriate to ask "who's winning?" in a successful negotiation as it is to ask "who's winning?" in a successful marriage. The answer, of course, is: we both are."

Two four-year-old boys were playing soldiers together.

"I want to be leader," said one.

"But I want to be leader," said the second.

"OK. You be the leader in front and I'll be the leader behind," said the first boy.

"OK," said the second boy.

The best strategy to pursue in conflict is a win-win solution. This is the belief that, despite all the differences, a solution is possible that will benefit both sides. When you think win-win, and act win-win, out of discord comes the greatest harmony.

© 2005, Eric Garner, ManageTrainLearn.com

For instant solutions to all your management training needs, visit http://www.managetrainlearn.com and download amazing FREE training software. And while you're there, make sure you try out our prize quiz, get your surprise bonus gift, and subscribe to our fortnightly newsletter. Go and get the ManageTrainLearn experience now!

What Makes A Successful Negotiator Five Steps To Negotiating Like An Expert

Writen by Colleen Francis

My husband loves to negotiate. So much so that whenever I need to buy new running shoes, he always buys a pair, too, with the hopes that he can swing a "deal" with the store by buying two pairs at once. Of course, he never gets a discount, but what I find fascinating is the number of times he asks for a discount, doesn't get it, and still buys the item at full price anyway.

I started thinking about this from the seller's perspective, by analyzing my own negotiation techniques, and those of my clients. The questions I wanted to answer were: Exactly what makes a successful negotiator? And what do they do differently from the rest of us to get the price they want, while still leaving their customers feeling that they're getting a good deal?

The following simple five-step process can help maximize your results each time you negotiate. Even better, I find it works wonders at every stage of the sales process, from negotiating price to discussing delivery, added product features or any other terms your prospect is looking for a break on.

Step 1: Get into the right frame of mind

The first thing you have to do when negotiating is make sure you're in the right frame of mind. Do you really believe that your products or services are worth the price you're charging? If the answer is no, then you won't be able to negotiate successfully. Period.

If you implement the next four steps of this plan, I can guarantee that those readers who truly believe that their products are worth the price they charge will walk away with more deals at full price. Those of you who think your products are too expensive, on the other hand, will continue to sell at a discount.

These steps aren't necessarily easy, and in fact may take some discipline to implement. But for those of you who are willing to put in the effort, I promise that they will help make negotiation easier, and more natural.

Step 2: Hold firm

Sales experts suggest that sales people in the top 20% of their fields never cave in on the first round. So don't give in to what your prospect is asking for right away. Remember, to those who love it, negotiation is a game. It's the "art of the deal." And to make those people happy, you must be willing to play.

Nothing frustrates negotiators more than a sales person who caves in and drops their price on the first round. If a client asks for a 20% discount and you immediately say yes, they walk away feeling two things:

The price must have been inflated to start with; and I should have asked for bigger discount. Next time, I will! Neither of these outcomes is good for you. So the next time your prospect asks for a reduction in price, instead of just giving in, try responding with one of the following instead:

I can appreciate you're looking for the best deal, but I can tell you that we've already given you our best price.

You're smart to be looking for the best deal, but our pricing is always competitive, and I just can't go any lower.

A discount? (in a surprised tone)

This is the stage of negotiation during which your belief system is challenged. In order to be successful, you really need to believe that you are already giving your prospect a great price. When I was selling for London Life years ago, I was once approached by client who wanted a 10% discount on his group health benefit plan. I was so shocked by his request - nobody had ever asked for a discount before, and I knew that we had the least expensive plan he was looking at - that all I could say was, "huh?" Not very professional, I admit. But he responded with "well, I just had to ask anyway…" and then paid full price for the plan.

Typically, 40% of all customers will respond the same way, with either "I had to ask" or "I just thought I'd try." Unfortunately, over 50% of sales people cave in on the first try, and give the client the discount they're asking for. This is lose-lose for everyone. Your company reduces its profit. You reduce your commission. And your customer walks away dissatisfied because you refused to play the game.

Learn how to hold firm, and practice your responses in advance.

Step 3: Repeat

Some clients will press ahead with their request for a discount even after you've given them one of the responses outlined above. The vast majority of them, however, are just looking for assurance that you really are giving them the best possible price, and there is no room to move. In other words, they want to make it a little uncomfortable for you, making sure that you sweat just a bit.

My advice in these cases is again: hold firm. Work to reassure your customer that they're getting the best price, and remind them of all the hard work you've both put into the deal. Try something like:

We've been 6 months putting this project together, I would hate to see it not go ahead because we can't settle on price; or I knew you'd be tough, so we provided aggressive pricing up front. I would hate to see this not go ahead because we haven't been able to meet your budget.

We find that an additional 20% of all business is closed at this stage - that's 60% of all business closed without ever having to reduce your price. Unfortunately, by this point, 80% of all sales people have also already caved. You do the math.

Step 4: Take their mind off the bottom line

If after all this your prospect is still pushing for a discount (and 40% of them will be), then find something else to give them that doesn't reduce your price.

Free shipping. Extra manuals or training. A client profile on your Web site. What you choose will be specific to your business, your markets and your client base. The key is to have the list of things you're willing to offer prepared in advance, so you can draw on it during the negotiation.

It's hard to think creatively in the heat of a negotiation, so planning ahead could give you a ready-made solution that leaves both you and the client feeling satisfied with the transaction. For a copy of the worksheet we developed to help you plan your "no money" concessions, just email us at colleen@engageselling.com

Step 5: The last line of defense

Finally, if your client is still asking for a discount, you may have to give it to them in order to close the sale. But before you do, always ask them one of the two following questions:

"What is important to you about an x% discount?" OR

"Why is an x% discount important to you?"

These questions will flush out any last details that could help you find a different way to structure the terms and pricing, which will allow you to keep your price while letting the customer walk away with their needs met as well. If, however, you ultimately do have to reduce your price, make sure to follow these two rules:

Never reduce your price without getting something in return. Getting something in exchange for a pricing concession is key to managing customer expectations that future discounts will not be easily dished out. As with the "no money" concessions above, what you get in return for a price reduction will be unique to your business and markets, but could include references or case studies, a bigger order, introductions to senior level executives or cash up front. Again, whatever you ask for, prepare the list in advance so you can respond quickly and smoothly.

Get a firm verbal agreement from the customer that this discount is all they will need to get the deal done. Try asking them something like "I'm not sure if I can get you this price, but if I can, is it fair to say that we can go ahead?" OR "I'm not sure I can get this discount for you. If I can, though, are you willing to sign the agreement this week?"

Nothing is worse than coming to an agreement on price (especially a reduced price!) only to find out that your prospect is still looking for other concessions. By asking them this last question, you can ensure you get all the issues on the table first, giving you the chance to deal with them fairly once and for all.

Colleen Francis is the Founder and President of Engage Selling Solutions http://www.engageselling.com which delivers sales solutions that realize immediate results, achieve lasting success and permanently raise the client's bottom line. She can be reached at 1-877-364-2438 or via e-mail at colleen@engageselling.com

To Be A More Powerful Negotiator Never Say Yes To The First Offer

Writen by Roger Dawson

Power Negotiators know that you should never say Yes to the first offer (or counter-offer) because it automatically triggers two thoughts in the other person's mind.

Let's say that you're thinking of buying a second car. The people down the street have one for sale, and they're asking $10,000. That is such a terrific price on the perfect car for you that you can't wait to get down there and snap it up before somebody else beats you to it. On the way there you start thinking that it would be a mistake to offer them what they're asking, so you decide to make a super low offer of $8,000 just to see what their reaction is. You show up at their house, look the car over, take it for a short test drive, and then say to the owners, "It's not what I'm looking for, but I'll give you $8,000."

You're waiting for them to explode with rage at such a low offer, but what actually happens is that the husband looks at the wife and says, "What do you think, dear?"

The wife says, "Let's go ahead and get rid of it."

Does this exchange make you jump for joy? Does it leave you thinking, "Wow, I can't believe what a deal I got. I couldn't have gotten it for a penny less"?

I don't think so. I think you're probably thinking

1. I could have done better.

2. Something must be wrong.

In the thousands of seminars that I've conducted over the years, I've posed a situation like this to audiences and can't recall getting anything other than these two responses. Sometimes people reverse them, but usually the response is automatic, "I could have done better," and "Something must be wrong."

Let's look at each of these responses separately:

First Reaction: I could have done better. The interesting thing about this is that it doesn't have a thing to do with the price. It has to do only with the way the other person reacts to the proposal. What if you'd offered $7,000 for the car, or $6,000, and they told you right away that they'd take it? Wouldn't you still think you could have done better? What if that bearing salesperson had agreed to $150 or $125? Wouldn't you still think you could have done better?

Several years ago, I bought 100 acres of land in Eatonville, Washington-a beautiful little town just west of Mount Rainier. The seller was asking $185,000 for the land. I analyzed the property and decided that if I could get it for $150,000, it would be a terrific buy. So I bracketed that price and asked the real estate agent to present an offer to the seller at $115,000.

I went back to my home in La Habra Heights, California leaving the agent to present the offer to the seller. Frankly, I thought I'd be lucky if they came back with any kind of counter-offer on a proposal this low. To my amazement, I got the offer back in the mail a few days later, accepted at the price and terms that I had proposed. I'm sure that I got a terrific buy on the land. Within a year, I'd sold 60 of the acres for more than I paid for the whole hundred. Later I sold another 20 acres for more than I paid for the whole hundred. So when they accepted my offer, I should have been thinking, "Wow. That's terrific, I couldn't have gotten a lower price." That's what I should have been thinking, but I wasn't. I was thinking, "I could have done better." So it doesn't have anything to do with the price-it has to do only with the way the other person reacts to the proposal.

Second Reaction: Something must be wrong. My second reaction when I received the accepted offer on the land was, "Something must be wrong. I'm going to take a thorough look at the preliminary title report when it comes in. Something must be going on that I don't understand, if they're willing to accept an offer that I didn't think they would.

The second thought you'd have when the seller of that car said Yes to your first offer is that something must be wrong. The second thought that the buyer of the bearings will have is, "Something must be wrong. Maybe something's changed in the market since I last negotiated a bearing contract. Instead of going ahead, I think I'll tell this salesperson that I've got to check with a committee and then talk to some other suppliers." These two reactions will go through any body's mind if you say Yes to the first offer. Let's say your son came to you and said, "Could I borrow the car tonight?" and you said, "Sure son, take it. Have a wonderful time." Wouldn't he automatically think, "I could have done better. I could have gotten $10 for the movie out of this"? And wouldn't he automatically think, "What's going on here? Why do they want me out of the house? What's going on that I don't understand"?

This is a very easy negotiating principle to understand, but it's very hard to remember when you're in the thick of a negotiation. You may have formed a mental picture of how you expect the other side to respond and that's a dangerous thing to do. Napoleon Bonaparte once said, "The unforgivable sin of a commander is to 'form a picture'-to assume that the enemy will act a certain way in a given situation, when in fact his response may be altogether different." So you're expecting them to counter at a ridiculously low figure and to your surprise the other person's proposal is much more reasonable than you expected it to be. For example:

You've finally plucked up the courage to ask your boss for an increase in pay. You've asked for a 15 percent increase in pay, but you think you'll be lucky to get 10 percent. To your astonishment, your boss tells you that he or she thinks you're doing a terrific job, and they'd love to give you the increase in pay. Do you find yourself thinking what a wonderfully generous company this is that you work for? I don't think so. You're probably wishing you'd asked for a 25 percent increase.

Your son asks you for $100 to take a weekend hiking trip. You say, "No way. I'll give you $50 and not a penny more." In reality, expect to settle for $75. To your surprise your son says, "That would be tight, Dad, but okay, $50 would be great." Are you thinking how clever you were to get him down to $50? I don't think so. You're probably wondering how much less he would have settled for.

You're selling a piece of real estate that you own. You're asking $100,000. A buyer makes an offer at $80,000, and you counter at $90,000. You're thinking that you'll end up at $85,000, but to your surprise the buyer immediately accepts the $90,000 offer. Admit it-aren't you thinking that if they jumped at $90,000, you could have gotten them up more?

So, Power Negotiators are careful that they don't fall into the trap of saying Yes too quickly, which automatically triggers in the other person's mind:

1. I could have done better. (And next time I will. A sophisticated person won't tell you that he felt that he lost in the negotiation; but he will tuck it away in the back of his mind, thinking "The next time I deal with this person I'll be a tougher negotiator. I won't leave any money on the table next time.")

2. Something must be wrong.

Turning down the first offer may be tough to do, particularly if you've been calling on the person for months and just as you're about to give up, she comes through with a proposal. It will tempt you to grab what you can. When this happens, be a Power Negotiator-remember not to say Yes too quickly.

Many years ago, I was president of a real estate company in southern California that had 28 offices and 540 sales associates.

One day a magazine salesman called on me. He was trying to sell me advertising space in his magazine. I was familiar with the magazine and knew it to be an excellent opportunity, so I wanted my company to be in it. He made me a very reasonable proposal that required a modest $2,000 investment. Because I love to negotiate, I started using some Gambits on him and got him down to the incredibly low price of $800. You can imagine what I was thinking at that point. Right. I was thinking, "Holy cow. If I got him down from $2,000 to $800 in just a few minutes, I wonder how low I can get him to go if I keep on negotiating?" So, I used a Middle Gambit on him called Higher Authority. I said, "This looks fine. I do just have to run it by my board of directors. Fortunately, they're meeting tonight. Let me run it by them and get back to you with the final okay."

A couple of days later I called him back and said, "You'll never know how embarrassed I am about this. You know, I really felt that I wouldn't have any problem at all selling the board of directors on that $800 price you quoted me, but they're so difficult to deal with right now. The budget has been giving everyone headaches lately. They did come back with a counter-offer, but it's so low that it embarrasses me to tell you what it is."

There was a long pause, and he finally said, "How much did they agree to?" "$500."

"That's okay. I'll take it," he said. And I felt cheated. Although I'd negotiated him down from $2,000 to $500, I still felt that I could have done better.

There's a postscript to this story. I'm always reluctant to tell stories such as this at my seminars for fear that it may get back to the person with whom I was negotiating. However, several years later I was speaking at the huge California Association of Realtors convention being held that year in San Diego. I told this story in my talk, never imagining that the magazine salesman was standing in the back of the room. As I finished my presentation, I saw him pushing his way through the crowd. I braced myself for what I expected to be a verbal assault. However, he shook my hand and said with a smile, "I can't thank you enough for explaining that to me. I had no idea the impact that my tendency to jump at a quick deal was having on people. I'll never do that again."

I used to think that it was a 100 percent rule that you should never say Yes to the first offer. Until I heard from a man in Los Angeles who told me, "I was driving down Hollywood Boulevard last night, listening to your cassette tapes in my car. I stopped at a gas station to use the rest room. When I came back to my car, somebody stuck a gun in my ribs and said, 'Okay buddy. Give me your wallet.' Well, I'd just been listening to your tapes, so I said, 'I'll give you the cash, but let me keep the wallet and the credit cards, fair enough?' And he said, 'Buddy, you didn't listen to me, did you? Give me the wallet!'" So sometimes you should say Yes to the first offer, but it's almost a 100 percent rule that you should Never Jump at the First Offer.

Key points to remember:

Never say Yes to the first offer or counter-offer from the other side. It automatically triggers two thoughts: I could have done better (and next time I will) and Something must be wrong.

The big danger is when you have formed a mental picture of how the other person will respond to your proposal and he comes back much higher than you expected. Prepare for this possibility so it you won't catch you off guard.

Roger Dawson
Founder of the Power Negotiating Institute
800-932-9766
RogDawson@aol.com
http://www.rdawson.com

Roger Dawson is the author of two of Nightingale-Conant's best selling audiocassette programs, Secrets of Power Negotiating and Secrets of Power Negotiating for Salespeople. This article is excerpted in part from Roger Dawson's new book - "Secrets of Power Negotiating", published by Career Press and on sale in bookstores everywhere for $24.99.

A Negotiator Needs Good People Skills

Writen by Eric Jones

Negotiations and the people involved in them are going to be managed by someone. Managing a negotiation, all of the parties at the table, requires exceptional people skills to influence and motivate others. Honing these people skills is a sure way to improve your ability to negotiate successfully.

The parties to a negotiation are people. People are unique individuals. To reach them through a debate of the issues requires that you present your case in terms they can readily understand. To effectively communicate with the other person you must understand the person. Not his or her argument but the "person". Researching the other party before the settlement conference can provide valuable details about their background, professional, personal and scholastic. Another way to learn about your adversary is to ask associates or common acquaintances about the person with whom you are about to meet. Finally, the time spent informally talking with the person before a negotiating session serves the purpose of providing insights into how you might phrase your arguments.

An assertive management style can be counter-productive unless it is mitigated by the proper mode of delivery. To lead an informal group you must adopt a subtle manner rather than boldly taking command. You want a management style that enables you to gain control the actions of the group with out confronting the other person and backing him or her into a corner. Rather than commanding try leading the others by informing, educating and convincing them that there are viable options in addition to what they came expecting to achieve.

To influence how others will act or respond requires intervention or management on your part . As they don't work for you and assuming you don't have absolute power in the negotiation, this means you have to make them want to do what you need to have done. This requires leadership. Leadership requires that you win their minds and convince them that doing what you want is in their best interest. Typically settlements arise when the parties become convinced that modest compromise on their part is worth gaining concessions from the other person. A small negotiation manager will seek to define and sell strategic compromises that achieve the needs of the parties. Mediators are adept at this small group management technique and negotiators benefit by applying the mediation techniques of leadership and management in their negotiations.

Managing another person or a small group requires good people skills. Those not within your control must want to listen to you and go along with your suggestions. The personal traits most likely to win favor with an adversary are not those of an adamant, arrogant, ruthless despot. They are more likely to warm to the approaches of a benevolent, sharing, nurturing benefactor. Teaching, coaching and informing are viable tactics to garner the support or at least attention of the other person. by attacking their message or facts you are not attacking them. By adding information to the equation you can inject doubt into their position. By demonstrating how things might work out for them, you offer options to be considered. All of these actions serve to establish your subliminal leadership role.

The author is an assistant editor at How-to-Negotiate.com, a site featuring articles about effective people skills required in the dispute settlement process and how people negotiate everything in their daily lives be it personal issues, parenting matters, social conflicts, or business or work related challenges. The site promotes the fact that conflict is a natural aspect of everyone's life and we should all work at improving our ability to negotiate the curves life throws our way.

How To Negotiate More Profitable Deals

Writen by Joe Love

Almost everything that happens in a business involves some type of negotiation. You negotiate with the people you buy from and the people you sell to. You negotiate with your suppliers to give you better prices, terms, and more variety of inventory for your customers.

You negotiate when you want your suppliers to give you concessions, or come up with new products, or give you first choice of items before they offer them to other businesses. No matter what it is, you are always negotiating something in or for your business.

When you think of negotiation, it doesn't have to mean gigantic corporate contracts that take months and sometimes years to reach a deal. Negotiation is about how to set up and create successful deals that are the lifeblood of any business.

Most business owners go about negotiating with the wrong mindset. They are only looking out for themselves. When someone starts out with this philosophy it means that they are looking at the other side as an adversary. And more likely than not, at the end of the negotiations both parties feel like they've lost.

When you go into a negotiation, your approach should always be to add value. In other words, you should be looking for ways to identify and create more income, revenue, and satisfaction for the person you're negotiating with.

You should be looking for ways to help the other person in his or her own business even while you're in the middle of negotiating with that person. If you're negotiating with someone, you should be anticipating going into business with them. Your success and their success, for some length of time, are tied together. So it is always to your advantage to help the other party come out better off than they were before the negotiations started.

Before you begin a negotiation session make sure you have looked at things for the other side's point of view. Take the time to see how the other person looks at life. What do they want? Not necessarily from this deal, but what do they need to accomplish and what are their goals?

The effective premise behind this strategy is that you'll be in a much better position to get what you want out of the deal when the other party recognizes that you see their point of view. Let them know you've thought about what they can get from the deal, and always double check to make sure your conclusions about they want are correct.

You should go into every negotiation being sensitive, respectful, empathetic, and focused on how the other side sees things, and how both sides can get a better outcome. Remember, what you're trying to do is set up a situation where the other side would be almost foolish not to say, "I'll try it at some level."

Besides looking at the situation from the other person's perspective, you should also know in advance what you want. Ask yourself, "What do I really want to get out of this? Why do I want that out of this? What's the implication of getting what I want?" By answering these questions, you'll go into the negotiation better prepared. Knowing what you want and why you want it. You'll know that if you can't have exactly what you want, then you know what are the other top two, three, or four things that would make you just as happy and the other side as well.

Remember, if you don't know what you want, then you are at the mercy of the other person. This is the reason why most business owners are not good at negotiating, they don't know what they want.

For example, many business owners will say, "I want to grow my business." But, specifically want does that mean? If someone says, "I want to make a million dollars over the next five years." Does that mean you want to make a million dollars in profits or a million dollars in gross revenue."

Negotiations are not always about money. They are often about something much deeper, a sense of security, a feeling of stature in the community, richer family life, or more time to do the things they want in life. This is why you should always operate under the assumption that the highest level of expectation and desire that you want for yourself is same as what the other person wants.

When you come to the negotiating table with this vantage point, you open up many doors of possibilities. You speak to the human side of the negotiation, not just the financial side. You help the other person open up his or her mind to new possibilities and many new ways of structuring the deal.

To be successful in the art of negotiation, you need to do three things for a successful outcome.

(1) You need to figure out how the other side sees things.

(2) You need to know exactly what you want to get and what you will or will not settle for.

(3) You must look at intangibles, and find a way to build them into your offer.

When you do these three things in all your negotiations, you will come away with a feeling that you've gotten what you want and have developed a partnership that you will be able to enjoy.

Copyright©2006 by Joe Love and JLM & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved worldwide.

Joe Love draws on his 25 years of experience helping both individuals and companies build their businesses, increase profits, and achieve total success. He is the founder and CEO of JLM & Associates, a consulting and training organization, specializing in personal and business development. Through his seminars and lectures, Joe Love addresses thousands of men and women each year, including the executives and staffs of many of America's largest corporations, on the subjects of leadership, self-esteem, goals, achievement, and success psychology.

Reach Joe at: joe@jlmandassociates.com

Read more articles and newsletters at: http://www.jlmandassociates.com

Negotiation Skills The Salami Technique

Writen by Tony Atherton

Some negotiators just love to play tactical games. In this article we will look at one their favourite negotiation tactics – the Salami technique – and think about how to rebuff it.

Salami sausages are big things (often spicy) that are eaten a slice at a time. They would be indigestible if taken in a single large piece. This aspect has led negotiators to use the name for a negotiation technique that tries to do just that: to win concessions in small doses (slices) when the other party would probably reject them if they were put on the table all at once. The technique is often used against a party that is mainly concerned with damage limitation.

Consider a tough union negotiating with management. Management would really just like to keep the status quo (damage limitation) but the union negotiators would like a whole host of goodies to take back for their members. These could include a pay rise, more holidays, flexible working hours, private health membership, better pension arrangements, improved canteen, increased allowances and so on. It is not difficult for the union to make a case for each of these and they can probably add to the list.

If the union negotiators use the salami tactic they will present just one of their demands for discussion and push hard to reach agreement. Let's say they focus on a 6% pay rise and after a long discussion and some haggling they agree on 4%. Deal done, except there is more to come. That's just the first slice of the salami and there is a whole sausage in the cupboard.

The next slice might be the holiday arrangements. The current 23 days is from a bygone age. 'Other employers' have agreed to 25 days plus public holidays. Let's say they eventually reach agreement at 24 days this year and 25 days next year. Good! The managers might by now be congratulating themselves on their rusty negotiation skills and their damage limitation but the union representatives have been busy polishing their negotiation skills.

'We would now like to discuss something that is very dear to the hearts of our members, the need for flexible working hours.' The slicing of the salami sausage continues: private health, pension, canteen, allowances, and so on. By the end of the negotiations, when the management team add it all up they are staggered at what they have conceded, slice by slice. None of the individual items seemed all that great at the time but – add them all together and the cumulative effect is astonishing.

What went wrong?

The management negotiators were beguiled by one of the standard tactics used by skilled negotiators. Of course, presented like this, the salami technique looks so obvious that you might think that no management team could be so stupid as to be caught by it. However, just as a simple magic trick can seem incredible when performed by a skilled magician, so even simple negotiation skills like the salami technique can produce amazing results when used by skilled and experienced negotiators.

The salami is not restricted to management-union negotiations. Any negotiator who has a list of things on which they want to gain agreement can use it. Try it when you next buy a car. Are you buying just one item, the car? Or are you gaining agreement on several things: buying the car, filling the petrol tank, replacing worn tyres if it's a used car, a free service next year, alloy wheels… and whatever else you can think of. Will they lose the sale over a tank of petrol or one new tyre?

So, what do you do if you are on the receiving end and the other party tries to salami you?

Of course, your first line of defence is to recognise what they are doing and your second is to put a stop to it. You will need to be assertive about this but the response is quite straightforward. The salami tactic works because the person being sliced does not recognise what is happening. Once you do, you can fight it.

How? Simply refuse agreement on any one slice until you have everything out on the table. 'Is there anything else you want to discuss as part of these negotiations?' Do not discuss details until you have formally agreed that everything is out in the open. Then put forward a proposal on a collective agreement -- bundle the lot together.

The discussion can now begin in earnest and you can use your negotiation skills. You might trade one slice of salami off against another by offering some flexibility on, say, item one provided that they drop, say, items two and three. Continue like that until you are happy with the deal, then close.

Good luck! And watch out for that spicy sausage!

Author: Tony Atherton © Tony Atherton 2005)

About the author: Tony Atherton is a freelance trainer and writer based in England. He has had four books published and about 90 of his articles have appeared in various magazines and journals. After an earlier career in industry he now runs in-company training courses in business writing, report writing (including technical reports) and taking minutes, as well as negotiation skills and time management. Over 6000 delegates have attended his courses. For details of his negotiation skills courses please see http://tony-atherton.co.uk/negskills.htm. For general details please see http://tony-atherton.co.uk.

Conflict Unavoidable And Potentially Positive Part 1 Of 4

Writen by Laurie Weiss

When you're the one who must deal with conflict you know what to do?

If you're an executive, manager or human you resource professional, managing conflict is probably part of your job. So is recognizing when hidden conflict is the source of a problem.

The very word conflict has a negative impact on most people: you associate the word with war, destruction, hostility and pain. When you think of conflict as negative, even dangerous, you probably tend to avoid it whenever possible rather than learn how to deal with it effectively.

Conflict within an organization is not necessarily negative. In fact, it is a valuable potential source of energy for achieving organizational goals. Effective conflict intervention can help transform a conflict situation into an opportunity for change, growth and development of creative solutions to an organization's most difficult problems.

Conflict may be open or hidden. It is relatively easy to focus on visible conflict. Suppressed conflict may be more difficult to identify and may masquerade as a variety of symptoms such as low energy, high stress, diminishing productivity, high turnover, poor quality of decision making, defensive behavior, nit-picking and so on.

Whether the conflict is visible or hidden, if you are the one who must manage it you need to be aware of its source and its contribution to the identified problem, as well as having resources for helping your group deal effectively with the problem itself.

You need to be able to:
· identify the actual problem;
· elicit the client's goals in regard to the problem;
· establish initial areas of agreement among the antagonists;
· observe objectively and identify the continual processes of the group or organization;
· be aware of potential pitfalls and the ability to avoid them;
· help everyone generate options in which all participants will win.

You need to be able to bring hidden conflict to the surface.

Suppressed conflict within an organization can be a far greater problem than open conflict. When divergent ideas are not expressed, energy and information are lost to the group.

Any group or organization problem may be masking suppressed or unacknowledged conflict. Bringing that conflict into the open provides an opportunity for successful resolution.

If underlying conflict issues are ignored, they do not go away. Instead, they surface as a series of different problems: "If it's not one damn thing, it's another." As each problem arises, it is often regarded as something that can be solved by training.

When training is provided, however, the impact is minimal; in fact, the training often seems to have vanished shortly after its completion. When training fails, one should suspect suppressed or unidentified conflict within the organization.

Communicate skillfully about sensitive subjects in business situations. Have the challenging conversations that lead to cooperation and success. www.DareToSayIt.com/blog Laurie Weiss, Ph.D. is a Master Certified Coach and communication expert. Dr. Weiss has spent 35 years helping clients resolve conflict in business and personal relationships. Email feedback@laurieweiss.com

Negotiating Skills

Writen by Manik Thapar

Introduction:

Negotiation involves two or more parties, who each have something the other wants, reaching an agreement through a process of bargaining. This section explains the principle of this exchange and gives you the confidence and skills to conduct negotiations and achieve a mutually acceptable outcome. Designed for easy access to relevant information, and including practical tips, this section covers the whole process of negotiation, form preparation of closing a deal, and is suitable for novice and seasoned negotiators alike. It includes essential advice on devising a strategy, how to make concessions, what to do when negotiations breaks down, and how to make use of third parties to resolve dead lock and conflict.

This month we will cover:

1) Preparing For A Negotiation

To negotiate successfully you need a game plan - your ultimate aim and strategy for achieving it. Prepare thoroughly before a negotiation to facilitate the success of your game plan.

1) Defining Negotiation

Negotiation occurs when someone else has what you want and you are prepared to bargain for it - and vice versa. Negotiations takes take place every day between family members, with shopkeepers, and almost continuously - in the workplace.

A) Understanding The Principals

Successful negotiating - an attempt by two people to achieve a mutually acceptable solution - should not result in a winner and a looser. It is a process that ends either with a satisfying conclusion for both sides (win/win), or with failure - for both sides (lose/lose). The art of negotiation is based on attempting to reconcile what constitutes a good result for you and what constitutes a good result for the other party. To achieve a situation where both sides win something for themselves, you need to be well prepared, alert, and flexible.

Note:

To become a good negotiator, learn to "read" the other party's needs.

Bear in mind that it is almost impossible for a negotiator to do too much preparation.

B) Recognizing The Skills

Negotiation is a skill that any one can learn, and there are plenty of opportunities to practice it once learned. The core skill required for successful negotiations include:

The ability to define a range of objectives, yet be flexible about some of them;

The ability to explore the possibilities of a wide range of options;

The ability to prepare well;

Interactive competence, that is, being able to listen to and question other parties;

The ability to prioritize clearly.

These proficiencies are useful in every day life as well as in negotiations. By taking the time you learn them, you will be able to enhance more than just your bargaining abilities.

Studying Negotiation

At the start of a commercial negotiation, two teams face each other around a table. Note how each team member's body language is supportive of their partner.

Note:

Start by visualizing possible gains not losses

Practice negotiating to improve upon your skills

C) Categorizing Types

Different negotiation types require different skills. In business and commerce, each instance of negotiation displays certain characteristic. It may be formal or informal, ongoing or a one-off, depending on who is negotiating for what. The parties involved in a business - such as employees, shareholders, trade unions, management, suppliers, customers, and the government - all have different interests and individual points of view. Whichever groups you belong to, you need to reconcile such differences through negotiation: for example share holders negotiate with boards of directors over come strategy, unions negotiate with employers over pay and conditions, and governments negotiate with accountants over taxation.

Note:

Be prepared to compromise when you negotiate

Determine your Strategy according to the type of negotiation

D) Appointing Agents

John F. Kennedy, Us President, once said, "Let us never negotiate out of fear; but let us never fear to negotiate"

In reality, of course, you may be reluctant to negotiate because you are afraid of an unfamiliar process. If this is the case you can find some one to negotiate for you. Such people are known as "agents", and they can be assigned as much or as little responsibility as you, the "principal" who employs them, which to give them in a give negotiation. However, you should always clearly layout the full extent of that responsibility in advance of the negotiation.

Some common examples of agents include trade union members, who negotiate as agents on behalf of employees, and lawyers, who often negotiate as agents on behalf all types of stakeholder in an organization, including management, shareholders, and customers.

Note:

Define an agent's responsibilities very clearly

Points To Remember

When negotiating, you need to know where you are prepared to give ground - or not

A matter under negotiation may be intangible, and therefore must be defined before negotiation can proceed

Negotiation implies that you are willing to compromise on the issue under discussion

Anything that applies to you as a negotiator applies to the other person with whom you are negotiating

Negotiating Informally In Daily Life

Domestic situation often involves negotiation. For example, you may agree to take your neighbor's children to school every Monday and Thursday if they take yours on Tuesday and Friday, and you each alternate Wednesdays. On occasion, negotiated terms may need to be renegotiated. For example, you may have negotiated a price for one vase in a bazaar, but if you buy more than one vase, you should be in the position to renegotiate for a lower price in the first vase. When putting an offer on a house, you may have to raise your offer and renegotiate terms if someone else is interested.

Negotiating With An Agent

If you are considering buying a house, you will need to discuss terms and conditions of the purchase with an agent, who represents the needs of the vendor.

Manik Thapar (MBA)
http://www.careerpath.cc

Negotiating With Conegotiators Or Against A Negotiating Team Requires Good Team Building Skills

Writen by Eric Jones

Negotiations are comprised of small groups of people struggling to accomplish a mission. Such groups can be viewed as teams. Teams are management challenges. When viewed collectively, the two opposing negotiating forces actually comprise a potential team populated by competing forces. This discord threatens the team environment.

If you are expanding your team, you are adding the management challenge of having to manage the people on your team. You assume responsibility for your team's preparation, pre-engagement research and the role each co-negotiator will play. You need most importantly to establish a global goal for the team and strategy for the pending session. If you are part of a negotiating team but not the team leader, make sure you know the team's goals and objectives. If they are not clear, ask for clarification. Success is being part of a winning team; not knowing why your team failed. Worse yet is to not know why! If the other side brings in a team of negotiators, You need to take steps to engage and manage their team.

If you are facing a team of negotiators, welcome the opportunity as a management challenge. Apply basic team building tactics to begin to merger the two teams:

- Welcome the other team to the negotiation.

- Observe the other team's pecking order and note who your prime opponent defers to, if anyone. This may tell you who the real decision maker is.

- Don't assume the primary speaker is the actual team leader or decision maker.

- Pepper random members of the other team to uncover latent leaders or issues that need to be addressed. Interview each new member of the team as to their role, qualifications and specific area of expertise.

- Establish your role as the overall discussion leader stating clearly and concisely the objective of the day's discussions.

- Look for areas of disagreement or conflict between the other team members. Typically non-verbal communications reveal such discord.

- Take time to fully debrief the other team, individually, before launching into the issues of the day.

Negotiating is small group management challenge. Seek to engage and involve the other team as part of the collective team. This will predictably come as a surprise to them. Confusing your opponent is often a viable negotiating tactic.

The group is dysfunctional at the start. Their are conflicting goals and objectives. You can establish an informal leadership role if you are able to establish a common goal for the collective group. This is not as hard as it sounds. You have all invested the time and money to attend the meeting. That presumes a common goal. Try to find a way to establish that goal as the primary purpose of the meeting in a fashion that addresses the needs of both sides.

The author is an assistant editor at How-to-Negotiate.com, a site featuring articles about corporate team building required in the dispute settlement process and how people negotiate everything in their daily lives be it personal issues, parenting matters, social conflicts, or business or work related challenges. The site promotes the fact that conflict is a natural aspect of everyone's life and we should all work at improving our ability to negotiate the curves life throws our way.