The principle of establishing business relationships with children What does this mean? Let us turn to S. T. Shatsky (from whom I borrowed this concept); to explain the essence of business relationships in the lesson “...The fact is that pedagogical issues are very different from ordinary human

Two men entered a meeting room on one of the top floors of a tower overlooking New York's Lexington Avenue. It was a cold, windy January day. The two exchanged friendly but reserved greetings. Sitting on opposite sides of a large table, they prepared to discuss the possibility of merging two giant corporations.

One of these two was Peter Jovanovich, president of the respectable publishing house Harcourt Brace Jovanovich (HBJ), which found itself on the verge of financial collapse. As the son of one of the founders of the company, Jovanovic would like to preserve the family property with all his heart. Opposite was Dick Smith, the assertive and enterprising head of General Cinema, a large and prosperous concern that was trying to stake out territory in the publishing business. Each president was accompanied by a waiting retinue of advisers, lawyers and financiers.

Both sides carefully prepared “scenarios” for the start of negotiations. Smith was to act as the buyer. After spending several months studying the situation, he decided that HBJ was an ideal option for General Cinema. But Dick didn't know if Yovanovitch saw the same possibilities. Smith planned to detail General Cinema's financial strength and reputation. He will say that he sympathizes with the publishing house in its difficulties and is ready to offer hope. However, you need to act carefully so that the other party does not expect too high a price.

The HBJ team, also determined to sell, groomed Jovanovic for the role of “listener.” His advisers agreed that General Cinema's proposal was the best option to save the company, but they also called for caution: it was necessary to show interest, but not determination. Don't reveal your cards, don't show your concerns!

According to the script, Smith began his opening monologue, but after a few seconds Yovanovitch interrupted him - and HBJ's advisers became worried. This was not in the script. What was Peter up to?

Having spoken, Jovanovic took a small box out of his pocket and placed it on the table in front of him. I opened it, and there they were wrist watch with HBJ engraving. Jovanovic moved them towards Smith.

My father always gave such watches to business partners at the beginning of a new relationship, Jovanovic said. “I give these to you as a sign of my sincere belief that General Cinema is exactly the buyer we need.”

A dangerous confession, and both interlocutors understood this. The tension in the room subsided. The two presidents and all the advisers sitting around the table, throwing aside ceremony, began to discuss how best to carry out the deal. The conversation dragged on until late in the evening.

What was said to the mountains

Many years earlier and thousands of miles from New York, in a Tanzanian valley in East Africa, two elders representing different clans of the Arusha tribe met early in the day under the shade of mighty trees. In the distance rose the silhouette of a mountain - the 4500-meter Meru volcano. Each of the elders was surrounded by a group of men: the two parties stood opposite each other in a clearing in the leafy shade.

Negotiations in African villages traditionally take place under the canopy of foliage. Like thousands of similar tree clumps on the outskirts of villages, this one serves as the local Arusha center public life, where you can discuss important matters at your leisure. That day, negotiations took place under the trees.

The elders formally addressed each other, describing a dispute between two neighboring farmers and announcing lists of mutual complaints and subject matters. monetary compensation offense. Each of the disputants, accompanied by approving remarks from his companions, loudly rejected the opponent’s accusations and cited the arguments of his elder.

The subject of the dispute between the two families was the escheated land between their plots. The neighbors' litigation led to a whole series of incidents: the son of one broke the valve of an irrigation canal in the other's field; the owner of the field beat him for trespassing. The father of the beaten man went to the elders, demanding an official review of the case.

The process that unfolded under the trees outside the village reflected the African landscape like a mirror. The litigants, to use the Arusha words for the first phase of negotiations, “addressed the mountain.” Everything went as expected. A whole day of debate lay ahead. And no one forgot to bring lunch with them.

The path of negotiations

Different people. Different situations. Different cultures. However, both involve the same familiar process called “negotiation,” an immediately recognizable activity that helps people achieve goals and settle disputes. In both stories, as we will see, the parties successfully reached an agreement. Why and in what ways negotiations come to such a result is the topic of this book.

In almost all cultures, people generally agree with each other in the same way, and they have done this practically since the beginning of time. If an Arusha elder had been in the room where Yovanovitch and Smith met, he probably would not have understood the words that were spoken there, but he would have fully appreciated the meaning and importance of the gift Yovanovitch offered. The African plot is not a deal, but a lawsuit. But, as we will see, it will also end with an exchange of gifts. Gifts are part of the universal language of human relationships. And all negotiations are based on the rule of reciprocity that underlies any relationship.

People think of negotiations as mutually beneficial communication, which involves four stages: preparation, exchange of information, negotiations themselves and completion. In the world of big business and multi-layered deals, lawyers and investment analysts sit around a table and begin conversations based on meticulously written scripts. After discussing all the issues, they usually ask for more and offer less than they expect to give and receive in the end. Tanzanian Arusha establish the subject of the dispute, announce their demands and “speak to the mountains”, putting forward exorbitant requests and counter-requests. They, too, are groping for the boundaries of a possible agreement, taking signals from the other side about what is acceptable to it and what is not. After this, they usually move on to a phase of concessions and commitments. In short, negotiations are a kind of dance of four steps. And these stages succeed one another most successfully when both dancers have decent experience.

We are all negotiators

Each of us enters into negotiations more than once a day. As children, we seek attention from adults, special treatment, and more pocket money. As we grow up, the subject of contracts becomes more complex sets of desires, which, upon closer examination, often boil down to the same simple things that we craved as children. Negotiations are a special and basic form of human communication, but when resorting to it, we do not always realize it. Let's try to define them.

Negotiation is a two-way communication process that can occur when you want something from another person or another person wants something from you. This happens at the kitchen table as often as at the conference table. However, due to personal relationships or production functions, the “correct” answer to many requests is often not bargaining, but unquestioning consent or even self-sacrifice. When a winter storm leaves a neighborhood without power and a neighbor calls for help, we don't bargain—we help. If your job is to provide impeccable customer service and the client needs something, you try to please.

However, note: even these seemingly non-negotiable situations are possible only in the context of relationships that have developed between people and are clearly regulated by norms of reciprocity. If a neighbor is known for loud parties past midnight and never responds to requests to be quiet, his cry for help during a thunderstorm will likely be the last to be heard. And the clients we serve bring us more money, the more we please them.

The agent’s plan worked: several channels sent offers with seven-figure figures, but Turner didn’t even bat an eye. The agent played the “other employer” card, saying King might leave for another channel if Turner didn’t outbid his competitors.

Turner had known King for many years and knew that he was not dealing with a tough manipulator, but with a friendly and compliant guy. And while the agent was sitting in his office, Turner picked up the phone and called King. After exchanging memories of old times and how much he liked Larry as a person, Turner bluntly stated: “Stay with me.”

“Okay,” Larry King replied, “I’ll stay.”

The agent was simply killed by this turn of events. And King was happy! He liked the money he got, he liked Turner, and he liked that Turner liked him. After that, Ted raised his fee a little. One nil for Turner! Bottom line: If you're a generally soft-spoken person, you'll have to really work hard to push hard at the negotiating table. This may work, but not for long and not particularly convincing. If you like to compete in life, your “grasping reflex” will still stick out, no matter how hard you try to muffle this facet of your own personality. But even if you hate negotiating with someone about something, having realized this peculiarity of yours and learned to work with it, you will be able to cope quite successfully with any negotiations.

I once led a seminar for business leaders, among whom was the founder and chairman of the board of directors of one of the world's most successful Internet corporations. After the seminar, he admitted that he feels uneasy almost every time he has to negotiate something, and therefore he tries to avoid such situations by any means, considering himself a bad negotiator. I argued that, given the billions of dollars he earned, he couldn't be that helpless. There is no contradiction, the tycoon replied. He succeeded due to the fact that he came up with an online auction system that completely eliminates any bidding, and delegates all somewhat unpleasant negotiations to other directors who know how to bargain (and do it with pleasure). He himself specializes not in contracts and approvals, but in certain forms of cooperation: developing a strategy, managing the board of directors, improving the unique online community of his company. To win, he did not overcome his vulnerabilities - he simply accepted them.

That's why I advise everyone: before you start studying the science of negotiation, take a look at yourself in the mirror. What comes naturally and easily to you? And how, based on your individual characteristics, can you build a strong system of effective skills and strategies that will help you achieve your own goals?

Five Negotiation Strategies and Styles: A Thought Experiment

Let's try to find your strengths by performing an imaginary experiment. Imagine that you are one of ten people who do not know each other, sitting at a large round table. A man enters the room and announces, “I will pay $1,000 to the first two people who can convince the person sitting across from you to stand up, walk around the table, and stand behind you.”

Introduced? There are nine strangers at the table with you. You see a person opposite, he is looking at you. The first two people to convince the person sitting across from you to walk around the table and stand behind your chair will each receive $1,000. All others will be left with nothing.

What tactics will you choose to respond to this strange proposal? You need to act quickly: after all, everyone at the table is thinking about what to do.

One possible reaction is to be wary and do nothing, suspecting some kind of prank and imagining how foolish you will look if you rush around the table now, listening to who knows who. “I don’t like to negotiate anything and I won’t until I’m forced,” you tell yourself. This evasion is a tactic that the Internet tycoon I mentioned also uses. Someone might argue that this is not a tactic or a strategy, but an ordinary surrender of positions. You don't have to look far for examples to see that in many important negotiations one of the parties stubbornly avoids appearing at the table. North Korea for years it successfully avoided negotiations on its nuclear programs - and during this time managed to strengthen its position in the dispute. US presidential candidates leading in polls public opinion, often refuse to participate in debates when the opponent proposes to increase their number. In general, self-elimination is a good tactic for those who are satisfied with the current situation, but, apparently, not best model behavior for the participants in our experiment.

Perhaps the most natural instinct would be to offer the person sitting across from you $500 to come and stand behind your chair. It's a compromise. Two people agree to split the prize equally. A simple, fair and fast model that amicably resolves many disputes. However, is it right for you now? You and your counterpart may quickly agree to split the money equally, but who should run and who should sit? In those seconds while you are assigning roles, others are already acting! The question of who should run does not allow for a compromise solution, so you cannot get by with a simple compromise model. Some additional tactics are needed.

This is our third option - adjustment. You can immediately go and stand behind your counterpart. If you do this in response to his offer to share the prize, you can then refer to this promise as the starting point in any further disputes. But there may be no promise! People who decide to use a 100% pure adjustment strategy get up and rush to the opposite chair, barely listening to the conditions, and reach the goal faster than you. But they face a problem. The lucky person who finds himself opposite such a “fixer” wins $1000, while the person who runs up wins nothing. The docile character can only hope that his partner, who has enriched himself with his help, will want to share the prize - and the possible division is not regulated by any preliminary agreement! Don't forget: the people in the room don't know each other and are unlikely to ever see each other again.

The fourth option is competition. The point of this strategy is to get the whole thousand plus every right decide how to divide it. One way to achieve this is to offer your partner a 50/50 split, and then go back on your words. This is obviously an unethical act, but some of us may do it. In the end, no one declared that what was said at the table obliged anyone to do anything. An even more aggressive position would be to say that your leg is broken, you cannot walk, and convince your partner to rush to you. Are adversarial strategies always as unethical as these two? No. On the pages of this book we will see many examples of a competitive approach that is impeccably fair from the point of view of any morality. But in this situation, it is difficult to propose tactics that are both competitive and ethical. Moreover, there may simply not be time to apply an adversarial model, as well as a compromise.

Finally, the last strategy is the most creative response to the experimenter's suggestion. Jumping up from your chair, you rush around the table shouting: “We both run! A thousand each!” It might work—if you hurry. This is collaboration, or a strategy for solving a problem. The owner of such a strategy is astute enough not to figure out how to divide $1000 between two people, but to understand that there is a way to get a thousand for both members of the couple.

In many cases, this strategy is more difficult to implement than others. After all, this requires: having carefully analyzed the situation and the interests of both parties, understand the main problem; after intensive creative search, find the most elegant solution and eliminate contradictions after introducing fair standards and assessments.

Typically, this is the optimal strategy. It is especially effective in complex negotiations, such as diplomatic or business negotiations, when representatives of giant corporations are discussing possible mergers and acquisitions. It can also play a beneficial role in family disputes, where it is important to resolve the matter so that there are no “winners” and “losers.” However, cooperation can be impeded by a variety of circumstances, such as a lack of trust between the parties, greed, the personal inclinations of the negotiators, cultural differences and simple poverty of imagination.

How many of these five strategies have come to your mind? And - no less important question— which one would be more natural and easier for you to use? Now that we know about these five patterns, we can determine your individual negotiator style.

Individual negotiation styles are nothing more (and nothing less) than inclinations and predispositions to take certain actions during negotiations. These inclinations are determined by childhood experience, family, first steps in the profession, mentors, ethical teachings, faith and much more. Over time, if you continue to improve your negotiation skills and expand the range of skills you use, your inclinations may change in some ways. But I am convinced that for most people the set of personal characteristics is generally stable and a radical restructuring of negotiation preferences is hardly possible. For example, I was raised loving parents, firmly determined to avoid any conflicts both among themselves and in relationships with children (I have two sisters). I learned this behavior pattern forever. Thanks to everyday and professional experience, I have learned quite well how to act in conflict situations, but to this day I instinctively and automatically try to avoid discord. Diplomacy is part of my personality as a negotiator, which I bring to any discussion and debate. I have other inclinations, which manifest themselves on different occasions with different people, but the diplomatic instinct always prevails.

Each style or combination of styles comes with a specific set of talents. A competitive person understands more quickly than others how to gain an advantage and the ability to dictate in given circumstances. Having bargained high price, he receives more satisfaction than people who are not inclined to measure their success by such measures. He sees the potential to take an adversarial approach where others don't.

A clear tendency to adapt means a talent for team play and the ability to help others even in the face of conflicts of interest. Such a person is focused on personal relationships, while others are focused primarily on money. A compromising person automatically searches for a simple and fair way to divide responsibilities or benefits, to resolve the contradictions of the disputants, and finds ways to do this faster than others. Finally, a person who has a predominant desire for cooperation will be able to achieve agreement much faster by asking questions, offering different points of view and trying to satisfy as many needs as possible, including his own. Such people sincerely enjoy complex and lengthy negotiations, which is inaccessible, for example, to supporters of simple compromises.

As you analyze the situations presented in this book and real-life incidents, note what brings you satisfaction and what depresses you. Those actions and decisions for which you have a talent will bring pleasure. Draw on the knowledge gained from experience, and, as the Danish proverb I quoted at the beginning of this chapter says, “bake with the flour you have.”

Cooperation versus competition

Any personal negotiation style can be classified into one of two types: cooperative and competitive. Depending on the situation, each of them can be effective and pose certain dangers.

Many people wonder whether there is some inherent bias toward competitive or cooperative bidding strategies. The stereotype of a negotiator, replicated by the press, films and mass media, is a person with a strong competitive streak, prone to tough tactics: ultimatums, demonstrative departures, playing to the public, beating the table, etc. This is not surprising given the love that mass taste has for dramas and attractions. In fact, an ordinary professional negotiator, and even just a professional, behaves completely differently in negotiations.

Two groups of specialists who studied the behavior of negotiators built a more accurate and comprehensive model of contractual behavior for some professions. The first group studied American lawyers, the second - British recruitment intermediaries and contract managers.

An American study led by Professor Gerald Williams found that approximately 65% ​​of trial lawyers selected in two major cities The United States gravitates towards a collaborative negotiation style and only 24% adhere to a truly competitive orientation (11% cannot definitely be classified as either of the two types). About half of the focus group participants had a reputation among their colleagues as successful negotiators. The most interesting thing is that 75% of these successful ones consisted of representatives of the collaborative model and only 12% of “competitors”. The remainder were made up of negotiators of both styles.

Williams's findings show that, contrary to stereotype, a cooperative orientation is more common than a competitive one (at least within the sample of American professional negotiators studied). Moreover, it is easier to acquire a reputation as a skillful negotiator (at least among colleagues) if you use cooperative rather than competitive strategies.

The second study was conducted in England by Neil Rackham and John Carlisle over a period of nine years. They studied the behavior of 49 recruitment brokers and contract managers who negotiated actual contracts. Some of the results of this work are analyzed in Chapters 5 and 8 of this book. For now I want to talk only about the styles demonstrated by the objects of study. The most successful of them had the predominant traits of a cooperative negotiator.

For example, scientists have counted what they called negotiating “red rags”: obvious self-serving options for agreement, unmotivated insults, direct attacks on the opponent’s proposed plan - typical elements of adversarial tactics. It turned out that the average negotiator uses 10.8 “rags” per hour of negotiation time; a more qualified one costs on average only 2.3 per hour.

In addition, skilled negotiators avoid so-called defense/attack spirals—emotional comments that blame the other party and deny counter-blames. For them, only 1.9% of remarks spoken at the negotiating table fall into this category, while for the average negotiater - 6.3% of remarks. The image of a successful negotiator emerging from Rackham and Carlisle's data does not reflect an adversarial stereotype, but a recognizable "collaborator."

What is the conclusion from both studies? Contrary to popular belief, it is receptive and accommodating people who have all the qualities of a truly successful negotiator.

Gender and culture

Preferences for certain negotiation strategies are formed under the influence of deep psychological factors, which include habitual schemes for resolving conflicts with parents, childhood experiences of communicating with siblings and friends, and lessons learned at the beginning of professional life. In turn, these early formative experiences sometimes bear the imprint of two even more fundamental components of our social identity: gender and culture. These are slippery subjects, and for many, scholarly discussion on this topic quickly descends into destructive (and false) stereotypes. However, scientists have established some solid truths about these two variables, so it makes sense to take a closer look at them.

Gender differences in negotiations

Research shows that communication behavior between men and women may differ, especially at work. Georgetown linguistics professor Deborah Tannen, in her books You Just Don't Understand: Men and Women in Conversation and Talking from 9 to 5: Women and Men at Work, proves that men are generally more assertive, they interrupt others more easily, and are more concerned with maintaining their own status. Women, on the contrary, tend to listen to their interlocutor, care about emotional contact and do not interrupt. And although you have probably heard a lot about emotionally oriented men and status-oriented women, Professor Tannen’s general conclusions are confirmed by statistics. The question arises: how to use or correct these. behavioral patterns so that they become a source of strength rather than weakness in a specific professional environment?

Observations of American women show that gender differences affect the flow of negotiations in two main ways.

Firstly, practice confirms that women, even those who have reached responsible positions in business, are somewhat less likely than men to initiate negotiations on such important issues as salary or promotion. As for negotiation tactics, women in general are a little more likely to behave in a compromising manner.

Carnegie Mellon University business school professor Linda Babcock found that the difference in the amount of the first salary after receiving an MBA degree between men and women (approximately $4,000 in favor of men) is explained by a single behavioral feature: of men, 57% immediately ask for more than the amount offered, and Of women, only 7% do this. All those who negotiated, both men and women, ended up negotiating an average income of $4,053 more than those who didn't negotiate. Babcock's research, described in her book Women Don't Ask, confirms a trend noted in other studies. Students of my Wharton seminars added to the list of purely female tactics: women seriously rely on arguments of “fairness”, believing that the opponent should accept them as balanced and non-traumatic approaches for personal relationships. Such tactics, of course, can work, but only if the opponent is equally friendly towards you.

The experience of my student Marcy clearly demonstrates how subtly the gender factor can influence the negotiation process. Before starting her MBA, Marcy worked at a small computer company and was the only woman in her department. In full accordance with Babcock's conclusions, Marcy, when she was offered the job, accepted without discussing the terms. She was glad to get this place. After two years of impeccable work, Marcy headed the direction that brought the company 30% of revenue, and two men higher salary, who came to the company at the same time as her, oversaw projects that yielded 1%. Marcy decided she deserved a raise.

However, she started talking about this in a classically roundabout way: when she came to her boss, she asked for certification. “I decided that this was the best way to get my boss’s attention to my success without bragging,” Marcy told me in class. “I didn’t want to look impudent.” But the trick didn't work. The boss was never able to find time to certify her.

Many women would give up here, but not Marcy! She went to the company president and boldly asked for a twenty percent raise, citing the fact that male colleagues were paid 20% more but managed fewer people and projects. That is, a twenty percent increase would be “fair.” However, this move was not successful either. “I kept saying it wasn’t fair,” Marcie told me. “Now I understand that, given my contribution, justice would require something more significant than 20% of the salary, but at that moment I did not have the strength to ask for more. And, of course, this uncertainty was felt. Moreover, given that I stayed late at the office, was passionate about my work and showed no desire to look for another job, there was no urgent need to listen to me.”

In the end, Marcy was given a raise, just long enough for her to refuse. When the management learned that she had been accepted into the Wharton School of Business and was leaving, her salary was increased by 35%. But Marcy has already crossed this threshold. She tells her classmates: “Being embarrassed to ask is the most destructive character trait for a woman that ever exists. Don’t be afraid to seem pushy.”

The conclusion about the influence of gender differences on the course of negotiations is confirmed by the existence of stereotypes. Women are considered, on average, to be somewhat more compliant than men, and stereotypes that exploit this difference program negotiators of both sexes to develop events that are not determined by the situation. Such drama can turn out to be either harmful or beneficial for a woman, depending on the qualifications of the disputing parties.

For example, observations have shown that women are less successful in negotiations if they are reminded of a negative stereotype of the “weaker sex” before the discussion itself. The fear of being portrayed as a “passive housewife” can completely block a woman’s self-confidence and, therefore, the ability to effectively use her personal negotiating style, whatever it may be. Attempts to refute this stereotype seem to only cause harm, resulting in overly aggressive behavior and leading to less-than-stellar negotiation results. The opposite psychological effect is observed if, before a discussion, a woman is reminded of the positive stereotype “women get along.” In this case, a false perspective ensures a smooth flow of negotiations and better results. However, because popular perceptions are often negative, women have to suffer from “stereotype threat,” as psychologists call it.

On the other hand, skillful use of other people's gender clichés can give a woman, if she does everything without error, a noticeable advantage. The ability to defeat an enemy with his own weapon comes with experience. One lady, a highly skilled negotiator, described to our listeners her adventures in “restructuring” negotiations, where she represented failed companies. These are tough negotiations between a company unable to pay its debts and its creditors. The background for such conversations is always the prospect of bankruptcy. Few women feel called to such activities, and our heroine said that in this harsh environment, her gender almost always turns out to be a useful quality. “For example,” she explained, “if some guy on the other side hurts me personally, I never answer him. I wait until one of the men of the same party comes to my defense - and there is always one - and then I have an ally there, and a split occurs in the enemy camp, and this gives an advantage.” Another, a petite lady who was in charge of mergers and acquisitions for a large pharmaceutical company, said that she liked to play with stereotypes. This woman was born in Poland, but ended up in Israel as a child. “Before an acquaintance,” she said, “I always find a way to convey to the other party that I once served as an officer in the army. I create an image of an iron lady in them in advance, but then I enter the room and they all melt. My heart was relieved - and now my opponents are willingly cooperating with me. Of course, if necessary, I can always return to the first image.”

Gender differences should not play a role in negotiations. But skilled negotiators, thoroughly preparing for the debate, calculate every aspect of both their own behavior and the behavior of the enemy. They also need to be aware of their own biases. In this sense, gender differences should undoubtedly be taken into account in a detailed analysis of negotiation style.

Cultural differences

If the gender aspect can complicate the course of negotiations, then cultural differences threaten to completely ruin the deal. At one time, Wharton had a small special course in international business. And now the entire MBA program is built around global issues. When cross-cultural transactions are made, the parties' attitudes toward linguistic differences, foreign customs, social norms, and religion can determine whether the parties will have a long and mutually beneficial relationship. business relationship or the matter will be limited to a one-time non-profit operation.

Let's look at some examples.

A senior executive from a British company once told me about his first negotiations in Lebanon. At first everything went well, but in response to each of his concessions the other side did not reduce, but only increased their demands. A couple of months later, after several such excesses, our hero gave up, telling his counterparties that he was already sick of their antics and that he no longer wanted to have anything to do with them. Several days passed, the contractors called him and said that they had “serious” offers for him. He did not accept this gesture. A week later, the former partners got in touch again, saying that they were making a number of concessions that they had previously declared absolutely impossible. The Briton repeated that he was not interested in continuing the conversation. Having reached this place, the narrator sighed sadly. “I had only myself to blame for this failure,” he said. “I later learned that in that part of the world, refusing to negotiate further is the most common way to make it clear that you mean business.” If I had slammed the door two months earlier, these guys would have come to their senses sooner, and perhaps I would have been able to complete the deal.”

Cultural traditions may dictate the composition of the participants at the negotiating table. For example, sometimes the status of a participant matters. In some traditional societies, only people of equal status have the right to negotiate. In more democratic cultures, the criteria for selecting negotiators are the possession of the necessary knowledge and the right to make decisions. Such discrepancies can result in serious misunderstandings and failure of negotiations.

One New York lawyer from a reputable law firm went with the President large company for difficult negotiations Latin America. The president of the host firm soon called his New York partner to discuss business, and offered the lady lawyer a shopping trip in the company of his wife. The American was indignant: blatant sexism! However, before venting her anger, she called a male colleague in New York, and he explained that the last time he was in that country, he, too, was excluded from participating in preliminary negotiations. The president of the Latin American company was simply looking for a way to diplomatically get rid of the lawyer, not the woman at the negotiating table. It’s their custom, her friend explained to our heroine: lawyers negotiate with lawyers, and businessmen negotiate with businessmen. If the lawyer were to insist on participating in the conversation, she would ruin the case and lose the client’s trust.

Countless examples clearly show that cultural differences are a real minefield for a negotiator. The Tanzanian Arusha, gathering in the shade of the trees, are doing, in general, the same thing as the New York oligarchs, but the tone, rhythm, signs, signals and expected relationships of the participants are completely different. The health of our global economy depends on successfully navigating such cultural boundaries.

First, cultural differences are more about form than substance. That is, they introduce the possibility of misunderstandings in the messages that people exchange, but, no matter what country you are in, the mainsprings of negotiations are most often money, influence and risk. And the best way to avoid misunderstandings is to familiarize yourself with a foreign culture in advance, find a qualified translator, and use cultural connections that will help you navigate dangerous undercurrents.

Secondly, the main barrier for multicultural negotiators (besides language and customs) is the parties’ perception of the existing relationships between the participants. In the chapter on information sharing, I write in detail about how North America and Northern Europe negotiators focus heavily on the mechanics of the deal, and most Asian, Indian, Middle Eastern, African and Latin American negotiators put the social aspect, the relationships of the parties, at the forefront. As a Japanese student of mine once put it, “The Japanese tend to see business negotiations as a prenuptial agreement that must end in a wedding. And the participants behave as if they are really organizing a wedding.” Western businessmen entering into negotiations with the Japanese or with representatives of other relationship-oriented cultures should view preliminary meetings and conversations in this context. Traditions of “pre-nuptial celebrations” may vary in the degree of ritualization, but in any culture, families use these events to look at potential relatives and ingratiate themselves with them. If you want to successfully negotiate in relationship-oriented cultures, be patient and recognize that the deal (if it happens) is only a fragment of a much more complex structure.

From style to efficiency

People at the negotiating table cannot distance themselves from their personal characteristics, but everyone has the same goal: using all their personal qualities and talents, to reach an agreement as successfully as possible. A deft negotiator needs a tenacious memory, a well-spoken tongue, and the ability to cope with stress. However, success in negotiations depends on the position no less than on abilities. The best negotiators have four important ways of thinking that each of us, regardless of personal style, gender, or cultural background, can develop to improve our own negotiation skills. These are the features:

Willingness to perform homework»;

High expectations;

Listening skills;

Impeccable honesty.

Let's look briefly at each.

"Homework"

Almost every book on negotiations emphasizes key value preparatory stage. Here's an example.

Several years ago, a colleague and I were studying negotiations over computer networks. We organized our network, which was supposed to help the parties achieve full agreement, and began testing. Hundreds of MBA students were given the same four-part buying and selling exercise. The group consisted of a "buyer" and a "seller". We familiarized half of the couples with the task and offered to start trading as soon as they were ready, while some had to bargain in person, others by email. These students typically took 10-15 minutes to prepare.

The other half had their task made more difficult: before bidding, they had to spend some time (usually 30-40 minutes) on homework - a series of actions on a computer network. After this, some were also traded face to face, and some were traded using a computer.

The results surprised us. Our advanced electronic communication method had little effect on the outcome of the auction. But the preparation - how! Students who resorted to a formalized preparation procedure, both in personal negotiations and in correspondence electronic negotiations, achieved better conditions transactions, and not only for themselves, but for both parties.

High expectations

It is noteworthy that people with high expectations usually achieve a lot. Great expectations are formed as a combination of specific goals with a strong will to achieve them. Expectations are a consequence of unformulated, sometimes unconscious attitudes about what is fair and reasonable. The lack of clear expectations is an important flaw in the preparation for negotiations.

To achieve in negotiations more success, it is necessary to develop the habit of outlining the range of “reasonable and fair” outcomes that are possible for the situation under discussion. Then you should set the expectation that you will be able to move the situation as close to the high end of this spectrum as possible. At the end of any negotiation, you can always say where your expectations actually were. If you are sincerely disappointed that you did not reach a certain level, it means that your expectations met that level. If you are truly satisfied, then the matter ended as you expected, or better. A successful negotiator must set expectations high enough to be daring, but realistic enough to create a healthy working relationship between the parties.

Listening skills

The importance of this skill for a negotiator cannot be overestimated. Listening gives information, and information gives power.

People who tend to be cooperative have difficulty setting high expectations. And listening to the interlocutor requires significant effort from speakers of the competitive style. Aggressive negotiators spend most of their time either talking about what they want or thinking of a smart move to make so that the other party has to defend themselves. Masters of deals and agreements take a different tact: they ask questions, check for understanding, summarize discussions, and listen, listen, listen...

Impeccable Honesty

Successful negotiators are reliable people. They keep their word, try not to lie, and do not inspire others with expectations that they do not intend to justify.

This behavior is rational. A sophisticated negotiator values ​​his reputation. It is reasonable. When choosing a partner, will you do business with someone you can trust or someone who might try to cheat you?

Is it beneficial for you to be honest in negotiations? After all, not everyone innocently lays out everything they know. Does honesty mean that you should disclose your position? What if the other side simply forgets to ask an important question? Should you still give an answer? Finally, can you slightly embellish the benefits of your proposal and somewhat tone down the option proposed by your partners, regardless of what you really think?

Honesty in negotiations is more than a set of rules. Like high expectations, this is a special position. And everything plays a role here: personal relationships, social norms, traditions and negotiation etiquette. Thus, when I talk about integrity in negotiations, I mean that a successful negotiator is one who can be expected to behave consistently, dictated by a reasonable set of personal values ​​that that person can explain and defend when necessary. Obviously, this approach leaves a lot of room for personal interpretation of “what is good and what is bad.” But ambiguity certainly accompanies any human communication. The main thing is to maintain your good reputation and self-respect. Be reliable.

From Manhattan to Mount Meru

Before we end this chapter, let's return to our negotiators discussed at the beginning and see how it all ended. Both cases were resolved. We left both the oligarchs and Arusha at the stage of information exchange.

symbolic gift and greeting speech Yovanovitch made it clear to Smith that the partner was willing to cooperate and wanted the deal to go through. Smith gratefully accepted both the watch and the tacit recognition of his advantage, and in response made it clear that he was ready to meet him halfway. The first meeting of the businessmen and their advisers lasted until late in the evening. Jovanovic's welcoming gesture ensured good contact, and by listening carefully to each other, the parties immediately made rapid progress. Jovanovic's and Smith's approaches to problem solving complemented each other well. Within days, they had a draft agreement to merge and create a new company: Harcourt General Inc.

In the shadow of Mount Meru, two farmers argued until dusk. Finally, one of the elders proposed dividing the disputed land, demarcating it along a path that formed a natural border. After this, someone in the crowd shouted: “Does anyone have a goat?” There was a roar of approval from both groups. The disputants dispersed to confer with their henchmen. Crowd pressure grew, forcing an agreement.

Finally, a litigator came to the center of the circle and demanded a trial (the one whose son was beaten). “As a sign of friendship,” he said, “I offer my neighbor a kid as a gift.” And he added that he would also help pay for the repair of the damper and that he agreed to comply with the new boundary.

The owner of the damper replied that he would put out “some beer.” He also pledged to abide by the new treaty. The plaintiffs came to an agreement. Their public statements and the subsequent revelry should have cemented this fact. The entire village will remember this event and, if necessary, enforce the treaty.

Summary

Any negotiation starts with you. And therefore, the first basis for successful negotiations is your personal style, your own communication strategies. The foundation of your success is an honest assessment of your strengths and weaknesses.

Some people have a wide range of “settings.” They easily adapt to different situations and different opponents. Others have a narrower range of effective communication. Some people are strong when they need to compete, but get lost in situations where they have to compromise or adapt. Others are good at cooperating, but give in when they should stick to their line.

Many experts are trying to teach a universal set of negotiation techniques for all occasions. In my opinion, this is both useless and simply frivolous. Both people and situations are too diverse for such a primitive approach to be justified.

The negotiator's job is to recognize his style and preferences, understand how they fit into a given situation (we'll talk about this in Chapter 7), plan his actions in each of the four stages that any negotiation goes through, and try to succeed: do your homework, Set high expectations, listen to your opponent, and act consistently.

Information theory of negotiation suggests that we achieve better outcomes for ourselves and bring more value to the people who depend on us if we continually seek important information about our partners and the situation. Success depends on the correct use of this information at different points in the negotiations.

Service for service (lat.).

Warner Communications is one of the stages in the history of the Warner Bros. film company. In 1989, Warner Communications merged with Time Inc. to form Time Warner.

Card game.

CNN - Cable News Network (English) - cable news network.

You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation by Deborah Tannen, Ballantine, 1990.

Talking from 9 to 5: Women and Men at Work by Deborah Tannen, Avon, 1994.

In this context, a set of stereotypical reactions.

MBA (Master of Business Administration) is a qualifying degree in management.

Women Don't Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide by Linda Babcock, Sara Laschever, Princeton University Press, 2003.

Publishing Corporation.