Negotiation Outcome Quotes

I’ve often heard professional negotiators tell me that they could accurately predict the outcome of negotiations fairly early on using one simple clue: whoever has less endurance for silence loses.

The key to resolving international conflict with a positive outcome includes looking for a win-win situation, finding common ground, formulating proactive strategies, using effective negotiation and communication, and appreciating cultural differences.

Hope is the magic elixir that energizes dreams, fuels possibilities, and lets you live beyond the limits of your historical thinking. It is not a promise that something you want will happen — it is an invitation to enjoy the possibility of what you want while you and life negotiate the eventual outcome. There is never a good reason not to hope!

the ongoing relationship is far more important than the outcome of any particular negotiation.

MYSTIC WARRIOR I’ve fought side by side with him through the centuries He holds the sword that doubles rainbows He negotiates with the moon Racing with the wind He annihilates all my demons He resuscitates my fallen battle horse Gallops next to me back to the front of the line and reminds me that courage must be in my every step in order to win for just an inkling of terror in the heart is the strategy of loss and to stay alive is to further one’s destiny but one has to struggle beyond simple existence to attain the outcome of fulfillment Excerpt: Soulmates by Sondra Faye

Prepare for every negotiation... 1) Focus on Outcomes. What is it that you want to walk away with? Being as specific as possible also increases the likelihood of negotiation success. 2) Support your desired outcome with data that points to its reasonableness. 3) Writing down your key points in advance - and practicing them - enables you to stay focused on what's most important and avoid going off on tangents. 4) Err on the side of asking for more, rather than less [of what you really want]. 5) Be willing to walk away.

Developing a cost-modeling tool kit becomes critical for alliance deal negotiations because understanding the underlying costs can help to identify opportunities for outcome improvements. This concept is sometimes confusing to our clients because they think the sole objective of cost modeling is to reduce costs, and they do not understand the linkage between cost and the improvement of outcome or service.

Helping the identities to be aware of one another as legitimate parts of the self and to negotiate and resolve their conflicts is at the very core of the therapeutic process. It is countertherapeutic for the therapist to treat any alternate identity as if it were more “real” or more important than any other. The therapist should not “play favorites” among the alternate identities or exclude apparently unlikable or disruptive ones from the therapy (although such steps may be necessary for a limited period of time at some stages in the treatment of some patients to provide for the safety and stability of the patient or the safety of others). The therapist should foster the idea that all alternate identities represent adaptive attempts to cope or to master problems that the patient has faced. Thus, it is countertherapeutic to tell patients to ignore or “get rid” of identities (although it is acceptable to provide strategies for the patient to resist the influence of destructive identities, or to help control the emergence of certain identities at inappropriate circumstances or times). It is countertherapeutic to suggest that the patient create additional alternate identities, to name identities when they have no names (although the patient may choose names if he or she wishes), or to suggest that identities function in a more elaborated and autonomous way than they already are functioning. A desirable treatment outcome is a workable form of integration or harmony among alternate identities." Guidelines for Treating Dissociative Identity Disorder in Adults, Third Revision, Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 12:2, 115-187 (2011) DOI 10.1080/15299732.2011.537247

To make my point on compromise, let me paint you an example: A woman wants her husband to wear black shoes with his suit. But her husband doesn’t want to; he prefers brown shoes. So what do they do? They compromise, they meet halfway. And, you guessed it, he wears one black and one brown shoe. Is this the best outcome? No! In fact, that’s the worst possible outcome. Either of the two other outcomes—black or brown—would be better than the compromise.

Earlier wars, like World Wars I and II or the Franco-Prussian War, were limited by termination, by an ending that occurred before the period of greatest potential violence, by negotiation that brought the threat of pain and privation to bear but often precluded the massive exercise of civilian violence. With nuclear weapons available, the restraint of violence cannot await the outcome of a contest of military strength; restraint, to occur at all, must occur during war itself.

Just being nice is not a winning strategy. Nice sends a message that the woman is willing to sacrifice pay to be liked by others. This is why a woman needs to combine niceness with insistence, a style that Mary sue Coleman, president of the University of Michigan, calls "relentlessly pleasant." This method requires smiling frequently, expressing appreciation and concern, invoking common interests, emphasizing larger goals, and approaching the negotiation as solving a problem as opposed to taking a critical stance. Most negotiations involve drawn-out, successive moves, so women need to stay focused... and smile. No wonder women don't negotiate as much as men. It's like trying to cross a minefield backward in high heels. So what should we do? Should we play by the rules that others created? Should we figure out a way to put on a friendly expression while not being too nice, displaying the right levels of loyalty and using "we" language? I understand the paradox of advising women to change the world by adhering to biased rules and expectations. I know it is not a perfect answer but a means to a desirable end. It is also true, as any good negotiator knows, that having a better understanding of the other side leads to a superior outcome. So at the very least, women can enter these negotiations with the knowledge that showing concern for the common good, even as they negotiate for themselves, will strengthen their position.

In the Tantrik View, there are two goals in human life: worldly success and spiritual liberation. The former consists of learning how to successfully negotiate the challenges of embodiment. Creating sufficient harmony and balance in relation to one’s work, family, mental and physical health, and so on gives rise to worldly happiness, the ability to simply enjoy life (bhoga). Unlike all the pre-Tantrik forms of yoga, the Tantra does not reject this goal, but actually provides tools to achieve it. The second goal, or purpose, of human life is seemingly very different: to achieve a spiritual liberation that entails a deep and quiet joy that is utterly independent of one’s life circumstances, a joy in simply existing, free from all mind-created suffering (mokṣa). Tantra does not see these goals as necessarily mutually exclusive: you can strive for greater happiness and success (bhoga) while at the same time cultivating a practice that will enable you to deeply love your life even if it doesn’t go the way you want (mokṣa). It’s a win–win proposition. But the tradition correctly points out that unless the former activity (bhoga) is subordinated to the latter (mokṣa), it is likely that pursuit of bhoga will take over. That outcome is potentially regrettable for two reasons: first, if you haven’t cultivated mokṣa (spiritual liberation) and your carefully built house of cards collapses, as can happen to any of us at any time, you will have no inner ‘safety net’ to catch you.

Although the Civil War was an apocalyptic success in the sense that it brought an end to nearly a century of struggle and broken hopes regarding the ultimate extinction of African American slavery, it also combined new freedoms, as in other major revolutions, with shock, breakdown, trauma, and tragedy. Neither desired nor accurately anticipated by leaders in the North and South, the war dramatized the failure of the whole American system of political negotiation and compromise that had never weakened the institution of slavery but had supported democratic government for whites for over eighty years. <...> Moreover, the long-term outcome of this revolutionary decision would be determined within a context of sectional hate and bitterness, political revenge, and competing presssures for reconciliation, reunion, and forgiveness.

I discovered that the predominant effects produced by the drugs discussed in this book are positive. It didn’t matter whether the drug in question was cannabis, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, or psilocybin. Overwhelmingly, consumers expressed feeling more altruistic, empathetic, euphoric, focused, grateful, and tranquil. They also experienced enhanced social interactions, a greater sense of purpose and meaning, and increased sexual intimacy and performance. This constellation of findings challenged my original beliefs about drugs and their effects. I had been indoctrinated to be biased toward the negative effects of drug use. But over the past two-plus decades, I had gained a deeper, more nuanced understanding. Sure, negative effects were also possible outcomes. But they represented a minority of effects; they were predictable and readily mitigated. For example, the type of drug use described in this book should be limited to healthy, responsible adults. These individuals fulfill their responsibilities as citizens, parents, partners, and professionals. They eat healthy, exercise regularly, and get sufficient amounts of sleep. They take steps to alleviate chronic excessive stress levels. These practices ensure physical fitness and considerably reduce the likelihood of experiencing adverse effects. Equally important, I learned that people undergoing acute crises and those afflicted with psychiatric illnesses should probably avoid drug use because they may be at greater risk of experiencing unwanted effects. The vast amount of predictably favorable drug effects intrigued me, so much so that I expanded my own drug use to take advantage of the wide array of beneficial outcomes specific drugs can offer. To put this in personal terms, my position as department chairman (from 2016 to 2019) was far more detrimental to my health than my drug use ever was. Frequently, the demands of the job led to irregular exercise and poor eating and sleeping habits, which contributed to pathological stress levels. This wasn’t good for my mental or physical health. My drug use, however, has never been as disruptive or as problematic. It has, in fact, been largely protective against the negative health consequences of negotiating pathology-producing environments.

Turning the “dumb mob” into the ”smart mob” is one of the key challenges of good governance in the age of social media. Bringing deliberative processes to cyberspace, augmenting the ability of ad hoc groups to gather information, analyze it, organize proposals and arguments, model outcomes, compare alternative approaches, and negotiate hybrid “positive sum” solutions –- all of these together might help forge the smart mob (millions of them) out of the dumb mobs that we’ve known until now.

First, it is important to understand that after the transaction has been completed, both customers and employees will be better off. The company will be on stronger footing. It will have greater resources behind it and will be a more stable firm. The company will usually have greater access to capital. There will be less risk. This outcome benefits both employees and customers. Informing

Good business outcomes are testable, valuable, independently achievable, and negotiable (TVIN). As

Anchoring – A term used in the negotiation context to describe a person’s heavy reliance on the first piece of information provided or offer made by the other party, creating an expectation of an outcome other than what was first envisaged. Anchor point – Any part of the body that anchors a person to a particular spot or position, including the feet, which are always anchor points. We look at anchor point movement as a potential nonverbal deceptive behavior in which anxiety is dissipated through the physical movement. Attack behavior – A verbal deceptive behavior in which a person attacks the questioner as a means of compelling him to back off from a particular line of questioning. This often takes the form of attempting to impeach the credibility or competence of the questioner. Example: “How long have you been doing this job?” Autonomic nervous system – The part of the nervous system that controls the functions of body organs and involuntary physical reactions to stimuli. Bait question – A question that establishes a hypothetical situation and is designed to trigger a mind virus. Bait questions typically begin with the phrase, “Is there any reason that…” Baselining – Comparing observed behavior with an established norm. This is a behavior assessment strategy that we recommend be avoided because of the high potential for drawing a faulty conclusion.

But if you are an honest, decent person looking for a reasonable outcome, you can ignore the amygdala.

The win-win mindset pushed by so many negotiation experts is usually ineffective and often disastrous. At best, it satisfies neither side. And if you employ it with a counterpart who has a win-lose approach, you’re setting yourself up to be swindled. Of course, as we’ve noted previously, you need to keep the cooperative, rapport-building, empathetic approach, the kind that creates a dynamic in which deals can be made. But you have to get rid of that naïveté. Because compromise—“splitting the difference”—can lead to terrible outcomes.

A woman wants her husband to wear black shoes with his suit. But her husband doesn’t want to; he prefers brown shoes. So what do they do? They compromise, they meet halfway. And, you guessed it, he wears one black and one brown shoe. Is this the best outcome? No! In fact, that’s the worst possible outcome. Either of the two other outcomes—black or brown—would be better than the compromise. Next time you want to compromise, remind yourself of those mismatched shoes.

In tense situations like this, the traditional negotiating advice is to keep a poker face. Don’t get emotional. Until recently, most academics and researchers completely ignored the role of emotion in negotiation. Emotions were just an obstacle to a good outcome, they said. “Separate the people from the problem” was the common refrain. But think about that: How can you separate people from the problem when their emotions are the problem? Especially when they are scared people with guns. Emotions are one of the main things that derail communication. Once people get upset at one another, rational thinking goes out the window. That’s why, instead of denying or ignoring emotions, good negotiators identify and influence them. They are able to precisely label emotions, those of others and especially their own. And once they label the emotions they talk about them without getting wound up. For them, emotion is a tool. Emotions aren’t the obstacles, they are the means. The relationship between an emotionally intelligent negotiator and their counterpart is essentially therapeutic. It duplicates that of a psychotherapist with a patient. The psychotherapist pokes and prods to understand his patient’s problems, and then turns the responses back onto the patient to get him to go deeper and change his behavior. That’s exactly what good negotiators do.

put away during an evening, the more personal was the tone of her everlasting political ramblings. What Allan quite effortlessly learned during the dinners on the Pacific Ocean was, for example, that the clown Mao Tse-tung and his communists could very well win the civil war and that such an outcome would essentially have been caused by Chiang Kai-shek. Soong Mei-ling’s husband was incompetent as commander in chief. At this very moment he was partaking in peace negotiations with Mao Tse-tung in the south Chinese city of Chongqing. Had Mr. Karlsson and the captain heard anything

Here is why the wellbeing economy comes at the right time. At the international level there have been some openings, which can be exploited to turn the wellbeing economy into a political roadmap. The first was the ratification of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015. The SDGs are a loose list of 17 goals, ranging from good health and personal wellbeing to sustainable cities and communities as well as responsible production and consumption. They are a bit scattered and inconsistent, like most outcomes of international negotiations, but they at least open up space for policy reforms. For the first time in more than a century, the international community has accepted that the simple pursuit of growth presents serious problems. Even when it comes at high speed, its quality is often debatable, producing social inequalities, lack of decent work, environmental destruction, climate change and conflict. Through the SDGs, the UN is calling for a different approach to progress and prosperity. This was made clear in a 2012 speech by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who explicitly connected the three pillars of sustainable development: ‘Social, economic and environmental wellbeing are indivisible.’82 Unlike in the previous century, we now have a host of instruments and indicators that can help politicians devise different policies and monitor results and impacts throughout society. Even in South Africa, a country still plagued by centuries of oppression, colonialism, extractive economic systems and rampant inequality, the debate is shifting. The country’s new National Development Plan has been widely criticised because of the neoliberal character of the main chapters on economic development. Like the SDGs, it was the outcome of negotiations and bargaining, which resulted in inconsistencies and vagueness. Yet, its opening ‘vision statement’ is inspired by a radical approach to transformation. What should South Africa look like in 2030? The language is uplifting: We feel loved, respected and cared for at home, in community and the public institutions we have created. We feel understood. We feel needed. We feel trustful … We learn together. We talk to each other. We share our work … I have a space that I can call my own. This space I share. This space I cherish with others. I maintain it with others. I am not self-sufficient alone. We are self-sufficient in community … We are studious. We are gardeners. We feel a call to serve. We make things. Out of our homes we create objects of value … We are connected by the sounds we hear, the sights we see, the scents we smell, the objects we touch, the food we eat, the liquids we drink, the thoughts we think, the emotions we feel, the dreams we imagine. We are a web of relationships, fashioned in a web of histories, the stories of our lives inescapably shaped by stories of others … The welfare of each of us is the welfare of all … Our land is our home. We sweep and keep clean our yard. We travel through it. We enjoy its varied climate, landscape, and vegetation … We live and work in it, on it with care, preserving it for future generations. We discover it all the time. As it gives life to us, we honour the life in it.83 I could have not found better words to describe the wellbeing economy: caring, sharing, compassion, love for place, human relationships and a profound appreciation of what nature does for us every day. This statement gives us an idea of sufficiency that is not about individualism, but integration; an approach to prosperity that is founded on collaboration rather than competition. Nowhere does the text mention growth. There’s no reference to scale; no pompous images of imposing infrastructure, bridges, stadiums, skyscrapers and multi-lane highways. We make the things we need. We, as people, become producers of our own destiny. The future is not about wealth accumulation, massive

The High Priestess met his eyes, evaluating him for another long moment. “I have wondered always what kind of man you would become, Narian. You can believe what you will, but to me you were never just a tool to be forged, an instrument of unique purpose and, therefore, worth. You came to me as a babe in arms, and I treated you as my son to the extent my brother would permit. Now I see that you are also a rare man.” Nantilam shifted her commanding eyes to me. “And you, Alera, are no doubt part of the reason. Had you been born Cokyrian, you would probably be at my side, one of my trusted shield maidens, for you have more than enough courage and ingenuity to merit such an honor. Again, something I did not expect to find in Hytanica.” “Then let’s come to it,” Narian snapped. “Be the wise and fair ruler I grew up believing you to be. If Cannan and his men should succeed in routing our troops, then accept that outcome and recognize Hytanica as a free land. Negotiate a peace treaty with Alera. Ask for whatever crops and goods Cokyri needs, but trade for them.” “You cannot rewrite history, Narian,” she reproached. “Hytanica asked to be conquered the day its king attacked us. I was charged with that crusade before I was even crowned.” “You cannot rewrite history, but you don’t have to be controlled by it, either,” he argued, and Nantilam’s eyes narrowed dangerously. “In the end, the Overlord’s crusade had little to do with history. He wanted to dominate Hytanica for domination’s sake. That was never your purpose--you fought to preserve your people’s pride and their heritage, you took the actions you believed necessary to ensure your empire’s growth and prosperity. Reaffirm your goals now--recognize that what is best for Cokyri is enduring peace with Hytanica.” “And are you giving me advice as the commander of my military, or are you issuing a threat?” “I am offering advice,” Narian replied, with a deferential bow, then his tone and posture subtly became more intimidating. “Although I will stand against you if I am forced to make that choice.” The High Priestess came to her feet, and for the first time, I saw indecision on her face. If Narian fought against her, any battle with Hytanica would be long and brutal, with no guarantee of victory. The Overlord’s powers had not passed to her, would not in all probability reemerge until Nantilam gave birth to a daughter, so for the time being, Narian held the upper hand.

Prospect theory could be valuable in situations of bargaining and negotiation. For example, when one party makes a concession, their utility impact is higher than the other party who had a gain. Prospect theory also supports the framing bias. Here, framing an outcome in terms of avoiding a loss is more compelling than receiving a gain.

Across a broad range of species—chimpanzees, walruses, lions, elk, mice—larger males and groups of males invariably win physical confrontations with each other, but that is not the case with humans. It is a quality entirely unique to humans that a smaller entity, like the Montenegrins, could defeat a larger one. Were this not so, freedom would effectively be impossible: Every group would be run by a single large male, and the world would be dominated by fascist mega-states, like the Ottomans, that could easily crush insubordinate populations. But that’s not what the world looks like. Large armies—or people—are stronger than small ones but usually slower and less efficient. This is true at every scale, from open warfare to street corner fistfights. Because the outcome of any human conflict cannot be predicted with certainty, the powerful often end up having to negotiate with the weak, and those negotiations invariably revolve around freedom.

very anticolonial movement, whether in Algeria, Vietnam, or South Africa, desired its foes to accept its legitimacy and to negotiate with it for an honorable end to the conflict. In all these cases, however, an honorable outcome meant ending occupation and colonization and ideally reaching a peaceful reconciliation based on justice. That was the primary object of the negotiations sought by other liberation movements. But instead of using the intifada’s success to hold out for a forum framed in terms of such liberatory ends, the PLO allowed itself to be drawn into a process explicitly designed by Israel, with the acquiescence of the United States, to prolong its occupation and colonization, not to end them.

Every anticolonial movement, whether in Algeria, Vietnam, or South Africa, desired its foes to accept its legitimacy and to negotiate with it for an honorable end to the conflict. In all these cases, however, an honorable outcome meant ending occupation and colonization and ideally reaching a peaceful reconciliation based on justice. That was the primary object of the negotiations sought by other liberation movements. But instead of using the intifada’s success to hold out for a forum framed in terms of such liberatory ends, the PLO allowed itself to be drawn into a process explicitly designed by Israel, with the acquiescence of the United States, to prolong its occupation and colonization, not to end them.

Information is a significant source of power in any negotiation; the more you know about the other side's interests, objectives, and options, the more power you have. Likewise, the more information you have about your own interests, options, and priorities, the more power you have in the negotiation. Information is not the biggest source of power in a negotiation, but it is the source of power over which you have the most control.

Consider, though, how the insight sessions, industry updates, and briefings for the CEO and CFO before the analyst calls will help meet the customer's business needs and will also link to the objective of building relationships with the CEO and CFO over the next six months; likewise, the coaching sessions and prep before the board meetings will cement the partner's relationship with the CFO even further. Meeting with the CEO and CFO before analyst calls to brief them on issues that they might need to discuss will give the partner the opportunity to provide essential information when they need it the most, creating a dependency on the partner and cementing his relationship as a trusted adviser to the company's leadership team. People are often focused on trying to get their customers to like them. I always advise my clients that it is nice if your customers like you, but essential that they need you. You want to include negotiable issues that position you to create this type of dependency.

The second footprint expansion issue is a volume incentive—you want to incent your customers to give you more of their business. You get the behavior that you reward, not what you desire (Kerr, 2008); if you want a customer to give you more of their business, you need to reward them for doing so.

Exclusivity does not change the competitive landscape (your competitors are still out there), but it changes the customer's perception of the competitive landscape because they are uncertain about competitors they have not used for a while. This uncertainty makes these competitors less attractive, weakening the customer's perception of their alternatives, and giving you more power. Because exclusivity is a power changing issue, procurement executives are often the “exclusivity police” and try to avoid single-source relationships.

Similar to the rebates we discussed earlier, pre-payment creates a strong barrier dissuading a customer from switching to a competitor. I do not think that you will get prepayment 100% of the time, but I think you can successfully obtain this 25–35% of the time if you ask for it all of the time.

Similar to the rebates we discussed earlier, pre-payment creates a strong barrier dissuading a customer from switching to a competitor. I do not think that you will get prepayment 100% of the time, but I think you can successfully obtain this 25–35% of the time if you ask for it all of the time. When you ask, I would encourage you to make it a first concession issue rather than a first offer issue. I will offer a price that I know the other side will react to by saying it is “too high.” In response, I concede to lower my price if they pay me in advance.

If all you do is to reduce price, then all you do is not get paid a lot of money. As you think about expanding footprint in a customer's account, you want to consider how you can create barriers to switching from your company to someone else's (pre-payment, rebates, exclusivity, and embeddedness), how you can know more about the customer's business than others (embeddedness and exclusivity), and how you can incent the customer to give you more work (volume incentives in the form of volume discounts and rebates).

Remember that there is no such thing as a salary negotiation. You should never open a negotiation with only Contentious Issues on the table. You want to make certain that you have lots of Storytelling Issues included because this will help you secure more on the Contentious and Tradeoff Issues.

Your biggest source of power in any negotiation comes from your Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 1981). Your BATNA is your best outside option; it is Plan B. Your BATNA reveals what are you going to do if you do not get an agreement with the other side. Your BATNA has nothing to do with the deal on the table; it is the other deal you will do if you do not complete this deal.

Too often, we explore one option and then, if it does not work out, we focus on developing another alternative; however, this limits our power. To maximize your power, you want to engage in simultaneous BATNA development, building your options at the same time, before you begin to negotiate, rather than one at a time.

You want to build your BATNA through the RFP and determine which set of suppliers you will advance to the negotiation phase. Then you want to take control of the negotiation and establish the starting point by making the first offer. You should never discuss the supplier's bid. Instead, you should highlight the intense competition the RFP process generated and the number of other suppliers who are interested in working with you. You want to use the RFP to highlight competition and then start the conversation.

I said that it was critical that the incumbent supplier recognize that there was competition and that other suppliers could do the work. Once the RFP was sent, the company noticed that the incumbent supplier's behavior improved dramatically. The supplier was on time with deliverables, their work was better than before, and they were much more responsive than in the past. My client was delighted, thanked me for my work, and asked me to send them my invoice. I stressed to them that we were not finished, though. They were surprised and reiterated that their incumbent supplier was now “behaving,” and they were so happy that they had done the RFP. I repeated that we were not finished yet and added, “You have to cut off a thumb.” They replied, “What thumb? We do not want to cut off a thumb.” I explained that we had to award some piece of business to someone else; if we gave all of the business back to the incumbent, we would only reinforce their perception that my client had no other alternatives.

When you have other alternatives, though, you can choose how you will behave. BATNA gives you power in negotiations and in making choices about your own behavior. You are much less likely to feel forced to do something if you have robust outside alternatives.

While we are conscious of our strengths and acutely cognizant of our weaknesses, we generally know far less about the other side. Typically, we are aware of our counterparty's strengths because they openly share this information with us, telling us how much others want to work with them and how our competitors desire their business. However, we often do not know much about their weaknesses. So while our own weaknesses are very salient to us, we know very little about the vulnerabilities of the other side. This information asymmetry may lead us to fail to establish aggressive goals because our goal should be based on the weakness of the other side's alternatives.

Underestimating the other side's BATNA and establishing a goal that is overly ambitious is not a problem. This will lead you to make an offer that may be too aggressive, but you can adjust in the negotiation when you recognize that your originally established goal is not attainable. Remember, you do not walk away if you are not achieving your goal. But if you overestimate the strength of the other party's BATNA, then you will set too low a goal and make an offer that is not aggressive enough.

In addition, when you lead, you are in the relationship-enhancing position, but when you follow, you are in the relationship-damaging position. When you make the first offer, you come to the table, frame what is being discussed, and make an offer that establishes a strong starting point. The other side then needs to respond to tell you what they do not like about your offer. If the other side leads, they make the offer, and you have to critique their offer. When I care about my relationship with the other side, I do not want to begin by criticizing their offer. I want to make the first offer and have them react instead.

I always say that if you are looking backward in the rearview mirror, you are probably not emphasizing the other side's interests. To maintain an interests focus, you want to stress the future—how can we move this ahead, how can we get this resolved to move forward, how can we work together again—this future orientation will keep you in the interests circle. If I am looking backward, it is likely that I have veered off interests and am focused on rights or even power.

The gain frame around synergies lacks a sense of urgency and may lead the potential purchaser to think that they can do this deal sometime in the future. Instead, you want to use loss framing by highlighting the risks in the potential acquirer's business that will be mitigated by owning your company. Building your BATNA by generating other interested purchasers will also help you to create a strong loss frame because you can highlight the competitors' interest in acquiring your company and the risk to the potential acquirer if their competitor owns your business.

Many negotiators ask a lot of questions because they want to uncover what the other side wants. I would argue, though, that it is not enough to know what the other side wants—what you really need to find out is what they are willing to give up to get what they say that they want. What is the value to the other side of each of the issues? It is unlikely that you will uncover this information through questions alone. You can unlock this information, however, by observing the other side's reactions to multiple offers.

Even better though, never believe what a counterparty tells you in response to any question and, instead, test it with an offer. It is not that the other side is intentionally deceiving you; it is simply that they may not be aware of their relative preferences, so a question will provoke feedback about their absolute preference.

When you say, “We'll match it,” you are conveying a full sentence, but you only hear yourself saying half of it. So, if you or someone on your team says, “We'll match it,” then gather your team together and practice the full sentence out loud. “We'll match it … because we're no better than them.” This is the clear message that you are conveying to the other side when you say these words. If you do not like the sound of that sentence, I would avoid saying the first half of it.

When completing an RFP, Option A should always be exactly what the other side asks for. You do not want someone in procurement to throw out your bid because you did not respond directly to their request, so I always suggest that my clients indicate that Option A is “in response to your bid” or “as you requested.” I also suggest that my clients highlight that Options B and C are designed to address something the client asked for or something that they have indicated was a priority in the past. You want the client to feel as though the additional two options were, in some way, requested by them.

The engine is never your salary; the engine is the employer's pressing business needs. The next car back has your responsibilities that will address the company's needs and goals. The next car back is filled with your differentiators that address the employer's pressing business needs. The next car back might be a bet on how your unique capabilities will address the company's needs and the performance that you will achieve. The next car back is filled with other differentiators and additional Storytelling Issues. The caboose is your salary and annual bonus. The caboose is always attached to the train and rides along, but it comes at the end of the discussion, not the beginning of the conversation.

all negotiation, done well, should be an information-gathering process that vests your counterpart in an outcome that serves you.

Recent experiments show that having even one negotiator who brings a scientist’s level of humility and curiosity improves outcomes for both parties, because she will search for more information and discover ways to make both sides better off. She isn’t telling her counterparts what to think. She’s asking them to dance. Which is exactly what Harish Natarajan does in a debate.

If you are present to what is going on internally, you can change the outcome of negotiation for good

By being mindful in Negotiation, you can change the outcome for good.

Exclusivity is a power changing issue; when your customer is exclusively using your services, or only purchasing products from your company, you gain power in the relationship. This is because the customer will become dependent on you and will lack alternative suppliers.

I told them that a concession made before you start the negotiation counts for zero in the relationship bank. People like to see you concede during the negotiation—not before the negotiation begins. The other side never knows about concessions you made before you started the negotiation, so they cannot appreciate this movement.

I suggest that even when you are pursuing a package deal approach, you should always have a few less important Storytelling Issues in a bucket ready to go. Why do you need this bucket of issues? You need to have something to add into the negotiation in case the other side puts themselves in a corner by saying, “Take it or leave it” or “This is my final offer.” Whenever they do this, you have to help them out of the corner in a face-saving way so that you can settle the deal.

I always tell my clients that “no” is not the ending but the beginning of the negotiation. You should not view “no” as a wall you run into that stops the negotiation but rather as the window you climb through to begin negotiating. Negotiation starts with “no.” When you hear “no,” you can be confident that you have tested the boundary conditions; you know at what point the other side will push back.

Saying “take it or leave it” or “this is my final offer' are commitment tactics to try to secure closure. Both of these are very dangerous tactics to use, though, because if the other side does not accept the settlement you are proposing, you have no credible way to re-engage them. A better commitment tactic is to use ratification. Ratification is an end-game tactic that can be used to secure agreement. You literally tie your hands to increase your power. You could say something like “the board has only approved this” or “I am only authorized to go this far,” These ratification statements will provide a stickiness to the settlement that you are discussing but still allow you a back door to resume the conversation if the other side walks away.

Probably the most important part of the story is that I was willing to ask. I think that many of us are discontented in different situations and become quite frustrated. I always tell people that you should never be dissatisfied; instead, you should negotiate to try to change the situation. Do not let your fear regarding the negotiation impede your willingness to ask.

Having a good BATNA can help you negotiate on the merits. You can convert such resources as you have into effective negotiating power by developing and improving your BATNA. Apply knowledge, time, money, people, connections, and wits into devising the best solution for you independent of the other side’s assent. The more easily and happily you can walk away from a negotiation, the greater your capacity to affect its outcome.

I honor your gods, I drink at your well, I bring an undefended heart to our meeting place. I have no cherished outcomes, I will not negotiate by withholding, I am not subject to disappointment. She offered a new friendship memo: that for us there would be no arbitrary rules, obligations, or expectations. We would not owe each other anything other than admiration, respect, love—and that was all done already.

Believe it or not, compromise can be enjoyable, not painful, when you negotiate with emotionally mature people. They are so attentive and connected that it’s a pleasure working things out with them. They care about how you feel and don’t want to leave you feeling unsatisfied. Because they have empathy, they won’t feel settled if you’re unhappy with the outcome. They want you to feel good too! Being treated with such consideration can make compromise a rewarding experience.

Humans had an intrinsic psychological tendency to form groups, and those groups had a tendency to compete. It was a side effect of consensus reality. Each group had a slightly different consensus, and so a slightly different reality, and the terms of reality are the one thing humans will always fight and die over, escalating these differences into crime, violence, inequality, war and hate—the very things the System was intended to eradicate. Human nature could not be entirely cured of these compulsions, but they could be channeled. The designers of the System permitted it to stage conflicts using astroturf, so long as the conflict did not undermine its non-negotiable long-term outcomes. What they had in mind were the cyclical controversies that play out on Social as we know it today. The System identifies some especially meaningless dispute—over favorite foods, popular storystreams, fashionable clothes, or the celebrity imposters who constitute our faux political system. It then amplifies the dispute until it becomes very heated, leading people to separate into opposing camps. After a short time, the System swoops in with a coup de grâce—some tidy resolution that brings everyone back together in harmony. A few weeks later, it finds a new controversy to amplify. Rinse, repeat, forever. It’s quite brilliant, really, effectively neutering the human tendency toward intergroup conflict.

I believe that the world would be a much better place if people were more open about what they want. Not letting people try to guess what they want, for fear of offence. Most negotiations fail because one or both sides don’t really know what they want the outcome to be. Second to that, they fail because they never tell the other side what they want.

For many victims of motor vehicle collisions, the decision whether to pursue an insurance claim or handle their own case can be a difficult one. However, there are numerous reasons why victims of accidents should be represented by a lawyer if they have received a substantial injury such as whiplash. A Car Accident Lawyer Will Explain The Process to You When they hire a car accident lawyer, victims of accidents will immediately receive the assistance and attention they need and deserve. Because most of the details of how car accidents occur are unique and not common knowledge, knowing how to proceed will be the major difference in the outcome of the case. A lawyer who is familiar with how insurance companies operate will know how to negotiate a better settlement with them. During an accident, most insurance companies will want to pay the least amount possible and move on, not even addressing the extent of the damage to the other car or some of the details of the accident. When victims have a lawyer involved, they will not be vulnerable to these tactics.

This is where perception becomes important: In most cases, the parties won’t consider the compromise to be a good one unless they also felt involved and empowered during the negotiation. If the other side felt humiliated or steamrolled during the negotiation, they won’t be satisfied no matter how much they got. In other words, negotiation is not just about the outcome, it’s about the process.

And an Executive Business Review? An executive business review (EBR) should present information at a much higher level, with a focus on executive leadership. It is one of the most influential meetings you will have with your customer all year, yet it’s the one most organizations tend to forget. QBRs happen frequently, across the industry, but EBRs? Not so much. Less tactical and less operational than a QBR, an EBR is typically reserved for your customer’s executive leadership team because it’s a high-level review of the value your product is providing the customer. When you draft an EBR, you should be thinking along the lines of, Who is my stakeholder’s boss? How do I co-present to my stakeholder and their boss the value my product has offered and will continue to offer them? An EBR is a way to move up the value chain, promote your stakeholder’s brand inside their own company, and share wins with the executive leader. It’s a strategic meeting that should focus on reinforcing the value in your customer ROI. It should also validate the goals of the organization, because like you did with your QBRs, you’re building a partnership through open dialogue. The only difference is now you’re doing it at an executive level. EBRs should be scheduled twice a year. I typically recommend scheduling one at least three months before the customer’s renewal because if the meeting goes well, it may help move the renewal along faster. I have seen executives stop pushing on price when they’re negotiating terms, and I’ve even seen some CSMs contact a stakeholder’s executive directly to ask for their help. “We’re having trouble with this renewal. Can you step in and assist?” More often than not, the executive will call whoever they need to call and say, “Just get it done.” Plus, when you reach out and ask for help, you’re engaging executive-level advocates, which is always a good thing.

Another simple rule is, when you are verbally assaulted, do not counterattack. Instead, disarm your counterpart by asking a calibrated question. The next time a waiter or salesclerk tries to engage you in a verbal skirmish, try this out. I promise you it will change the entire tenor of the conversation. The basic issue here is that when people feel that they are not in control, they adopt what psychologists call a hostage mentality. That is, in moments of conflict they react to their lack of power by either becoming extremely defensive or lashing out. Neurologically, in situations like this the fight-or-flight mechanism in the reptilian brain or the emotions in the limbic system overwhelm the rational part of our mind, the neocortex, leading us to overreact in an impulsive, instinctive way. In a negotiation, like in the one between my client and the CEO, this always produces a negative outcome. So we have to train our neocortex to override the emotions from the other two brains.

Stop Trying to Control the Outcome Focus on Your Behavior and Actions Instead

The interior structure of modern Africa was built on greed rather than an informed reality. It's the same strategy my eleven year old nephew uses in negotiations: ignore the well-established rules and parameters, and demand a fairy-tale outcome that brings short-term joy, with the long-term consequences relegated to a problem for a future version of yourself to deal with.

But does a growth mindset make people good just at getting their own way? Often negotiations require people to understand and try to serve the other person’s interests as well. Ideally, at the end of a negotiation, both parties feel their needs have been met. In a study with a more challenging negotiation task, those with a growth mindset were able to get beyond initial failures by constructing a deal that addressed both parties’ underlying interests. So, not only do those with a growth mindset gain more lucrative outcomes for themselves, but, more important, they also come up with more creative solutions that confer benefits all around.

outcomes negotiated within discursive spaces that influence our judgment of what is and is not experienced as an indicator of well-being under stress in different contexts.

The two parties work together on a set of principles to base their negotiations on the needs of each party. Solutions are suggested for their merit and are proposed for mutual gains and building of long term relationships. Instead of each party trying to subdue the other, conflicts are resolved with a fair and mutually agreeable set of standards. The outcome of this approach is geared towards a win-win solution to the conflict.

First, understand that “shyness” and social anxiety are two closely related dynamics: Both terms describe a learned response to social interaction. In unfamiliar situations, or even familiar situations whose outcome may be unknown—meeting new people, giving a speech, asking someone for a date, negotiating a raise—a “shy” or socially anxious person may hesitate to pursue the things he or she is interested in, or even begin to avoid situations that cause nervousness or anxiety. For example, if you fear that asking your supervisor to explain a basic point at work will make you appear stupid and you therefore avoid asking questions, you are allowing your social anxiety—your fear of humiliation or embarrassment—to control your actions and inhibit your career success. In your personal life, feeling out of place at parties because of anxiety might lead you to decline many social invitations. When you fear rejection, the interactions you do have can become unsatisfying. Your anxiety can prevent you from giving all you can to a conversation and can prevent others from responding fully to all you have to offer. I call this fear response interactive inhibition.

research by my University of Michigan colleague Shirli Kopelman and others indicates that negotiators who make the first offer do better economically but are less satisfied with outcomes because they feel more anxiety. (“Resolving the First-Offer Dilemma,” Negotiation, July 2007)

43. Change Your Vocabulary, Change Your Attitude Our words have power. They have the power to change our lives for the better or for the worse. Even the Bible says: The tongue has the power of life and death. But what the heck does that mean?! You see, I think ‘trying’ isn’t the only word you should jettison from your dictionary. Let’s take the word ‘problem’ - that one instantly seems to me like a hassle and a pain. I replace it with ‘challenge’. All of a sudden, something that seemed oppressive and negative becomes an obstacle course to be negotiated. Changing the words you use will help you change your attitude to the situation you’re in and the life you live. Do you hear that? The words we use become the life we live. That’s why I have never ever had a ‘cold’ in my life. I have, though, occasionally had a warm! I refuse to call the weekend the weak-end - that symbolizes surrender. I call it a strong-end. (And I can guarantee you’ll do much more with those 48 hours if you live it like that!) And what about the words ‘alarm clock’? ‘Alarm’ to me says emergency and that my life is in danger. That’s a terrible way to start a day. I call it instead my ‘opportunity’ clock. Waking me up to give me the opportunity to get out there and grab life with both hands. And then, of course, there is the worst of all…the word ‘can’t’. When I hear an expedition member say it ‘can’t’ be done, I can never resist amending it to: ‘We haven’t yet found a way to do it.’ And therein lies the adventure! When you start to use words and phrases like these, for sure loads of people will think you’re crazy, but the good news is that you’ll make them smile, and you will be talking into existence the sort of outcomes that most people can only ever dream of… I’d take being called crazy to get that. Wouldn’t you?

My point is, whether you do or don’t negotiate anything should be strictly up to you, based on your answers to the following questions: Am I comfortable negotiating in this particular situation? Will negotiating meet my needs? Is the expenditure of energy and time on my part worth the benefits that I can receive as a result of this encounter? Only if you, as a unique individual, can answer yes to all three of these questions should you proceed to negotiate. You should always have a sense of mastery over your situation. Pick and choose your opportunities based upon your needs. Don’t allow yourself to be manipulated or intimidated by those who aren’t concerned with your best interests. You have the freedom to choose your attitude toward any given set of circumstances and the ability to affect the outcome. In other words, you can play a much greater role than you thought in shaping your life and improving your lifestyle.

The mainstream political forces in Manipur and the policy planners in Delhi had continued to treat the upsurge as law and order problems. More troops were inducted and less economic developments were carried out. Haunted by unemployment and lack of opportunity, the Meitei youths continued to swell the ranks of the terrorists. They were keenly observing the outcome of the negotiations between the NSCN (IM) and the government of India.

The historian E. P. Thompson said that history never happens as the actors suspect, that history is instead the “record of unintended consequences.” The assassination of Julius Caesar does not restore the Roman Republic, it leads to a brutal civil war and, at the end, another emperor. The Allied powers destroy Hitler and Germany but empower Russia and Stalin and create a new Cold War to follow the conclusion of the hot one. There is always something you didn’t expect, always some second-or third-order consequence. Peter Thiel’s conspiracy had achieved its intended outcome. A negotiated peace had been found. Gawker.com would cease to publish. A new leader was in charge of the rest of the sites, some of the offending articles would be removed. But what would the consequences, intended and otherwise, of it all be? What had this brilliant, independent mind neglected to see? What, if anything, would come as a surprise? His own power and strength for one.

The lesson of this story is clear. The spirit of Sabinus always turns to its enemy for safety. It is not a spirit of self-reliance and strength in adversity. It represents the worst weakness of all: namely, cowardice. Instead of accepting the necessity of battle, Sabinus always sought to negotiate. His method was to trust a deceptive enemy at every turn. The result of such leadership was a disgraceful massacre. This is always the outcome, and will be the outcome for any country that is governed by such a spirit.

Throughout this chapter, the point has been made that your winning in negotiations does not require someone to lose. Winning means managing the outcome by seeing your reality true and clear and being able to react with the appropriate strategy.

Start by asking: What would be the value-maximizing outcome? Are there ways to create value?

He and his colleagues observed a number of negotiations and measured how many moments of silence there were in between all the talking. They found a significant correlation between the amount of silence and the success of the negotiations in reaching mutually satisfying outcomes. The researchers called silence the ultimate power move in negotiations.

how many people across how many lifetimes have watched upon war bearing down on their home, watching and waiting for fate to come, entering into silent negotiation, whispering and then pleading, the mind anticipating all outcomes but for the spectre that cannot be directly looked at.

Incompatible positions might be hiding reconcilable underlying interests. Understanding why the other side wants something can lead to better outcomes than continuing to argue over competing demands or trying to meet in the middle.

Not every negotiation should end with a deal. If the best you have to offer the other side is worse than their alternatives, not reaching a deal is the right outcome.

No matter the audience, his message was the same: stay detached, don’t become fixated on a particular outcome, care, but not that much. (Jimmy Carter cared too much.) If you approach a negotiation as if it were a game, you’ll have more fun and be more successful. If you approach life as if it were a negotiation, you’ll care less, achieve more, and live longer.

Part II focuses on the decisive role of process in determining outcomes. Negotiating the process astutely can be more important than bargaining hard on the substance of the deal.

If your product leader is asking you to deliver an outcome with no input from your team, try these tips to shift to a two-way negotiation: If you are being asked to deliver a business outcome, try mapping out which product outcomes might drive that business outcome, and get feedback from your leader. If you are being asked to deliver a product outcome, ask your leader for more of the business context. Try asking, “What business outcomes are we trying to drive with this product outcome?” In either case, clearly communicate how far you think you can get in the allotted time.

If your team is setting their own outcome with no input from the product leader, try these tips to shift to a two-way negotiation: Before you set your own outcome, ask your product leader for more business context. Try these questions: What’s most important to the business right now? Try to frame this conversation in terms of business outcomes. Is there a customer segment that is more important than other customer segments? Are there strategic initiatives we should know about? Use the information you gain to map out the most important business outcomes and what product outcomes might drive those business outcomes. Get feedback from your leader. Choose a product outcome that your team has the most influence over.

If your product trio is already negotiating outcomes with your product leader, congratulations! However, remember to keep these tips in mind as you set outcomes with your leader: Is your team being tasked with a product outcome and not a business outcome or a traction metric? If you are being tasked with a traction metric, is the metric well known? Have you already confirmed that your customers want to exhibit the behavior being tracked? If it’s the first time you are working on a new metric, are you starting with a learning goal (e.g., discover the relevant opportunities) before committing to a challenging performance goal?

The number one thing he taught me is never to fight when you can negotiate instead. Because the outcome of a fight is never certain.

Sometimes I feel impatient about how much ableism has forced us to emphasize accessibility to get people to pay even a modicum of attention to it. Collective access is revolutionary because disabled people of color (and disabled people in general) choosing each other is revolutionary. And, in many ways access should not be a revolutionary concept. It is the routine, every day part of the work. It is only the first step in movement building. People talk about access as the outcome, not the process, as if having spaces be accessible is enough to get us all free. Disabled people are so much more than our access needs; we can’t have a movement without safety and access, and yet there is so much more still waiting for us collectively once we build this skillset of negotiating access needs with each other. Tonight I am taking time to appreciate and enjoy access as a communication of our deepest desires. When my new friend makes their house wheelchair accessible so I can come over, a whole new level of safety and trust opens up. When a love takes initiative to reach out to event organizers to make sure my buds and I can fully participate, that’s thoughtfulness, and also political commitment in practice. When I eat dinner with dear ones and they know which spoon or cup to grab, that’s attunement. When I can ask a friend to move my body, it’s because I know they want me to be comfortable out in the world. When I can do the impairment-related parts of my routine around someone, that’s intimacy, a gift of letting each other into our most private worlds. Feeling thankful for access—and interdependence—as an opportunity for us to show up for one another, and also for crip spaces that give us a taste of what can take place when we have each other. I am so hungry for us to be together. I am so ready for what is around the corner. —STACEY PARK

although the security imperative and the NSS to which it gives rise provide the driving force behind transformative technology development, governed interdependence is the obverse of statism (or top-down direction of the economy); it conceptualizes the collaborative and negotiated character of public-private sector relations as NSS components seek to achieve their goals (an example being the increasing emphasis that defense programs place on developing products and services that serve both military and commercial markets). I emphasize that the governed interdependence concept applies to situations in which a government body works with or through private actors and entities to achieve its own objectives, but at the same time maintains control over the goals to be pursued and the rules of participation. This does not mean that outcomes will always yield the results desired or that there will not be spectacular failures.

Croatia, with hundreds of thousands of Serbs within its boundaries, was not ready to accept such an outcome. Croatian President Franjo Tudjman had long dreamed of establishing Croatia as an independent country. But the boundaries of his “country,” drawn originally by Tito to define the republic within Yugoslavia, would contain areas in which Serbs had lived for centuries. In the brief war in Slovenia the Yugoslav Army seemed to be defending the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia; when that same army went to war only a few weeks later against Croatia, it had become a Serb army fighting for the Serbs inside Croatia. The Croatian-Serbian war began with irregulars and local incidents, and escalated rapidly to full-scale fighting. In August 1991, an obscure Yugoslav Army lieutenant colonel named Ratko Mladic joined his regular forces with the local irregulars—groups of young racists and thugs who enjoyed beating up Croats—and launched an attack on Kijevo, an isolated Croat village in the Serb-controlled Krajina. There had been fighting prior to Kijevo, but this action, backed fully by Belgrade, “set the pattern for the rest of the war in Croatia: JNA [Yugoslav] artillery supporting an infantry that was part conscript and part locally-recruited Serb volunteers.”12 Within weeks, fighting had broken out across much of Croatia. The JNA began a vicious artillery assault on Vukovar, an important Croat mining town on the Serbian border. Vukovar and the region around it, known as eastern Slavonia, fell to the Serbs in mid-November, and Zagreb was threatened, sending Croatia into panic. (The peaceful return of eastern Slavonia to Croatia would become one of the central issues in our negotiations in 1995.) After exhausting other options, the European Community asked the former British Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington to take on the task of bringing peace to Yugoslavia. Carrington, an urbane man of legendary integrity, told me later that he had never met such terrible liars in his life as the peoples of the Balkans. As the war in Croatia escalated and Vukovar crumbled under Serb shells, Carrington put forward a compromise plan