William goldman

*59 effective bargainers adopt either mode depending on the type of opponent the negotiator faces.245 If one deals with an aggressive negotiator, one needs to be able to respond aggressively; if bargaining with a cooperative negotiator, one needs to adopt a cooperative mode.246

These studies provide several lessons. First, effective negotiators prepare carefully and approach negotiation methodically. Second, contrary to the general impression that many students bring to our courses, one need not negotiate aggressively to be effective (although aggressiveness can be effective). Third, effective negotiators control their emotions during negotiations. Fourth, effective negotiators engage in comprehensive questioning when they bargain. Fifth, an ability to respond flexibly to different circumstances proves to be one of the most critical negotiation skills one can have.

B. “Know Thyself”: Self Awareness and Self-Assessment

Truly effective negotiators understand not only their opponents, but themselves as well. Because successful negotiation requires effective goal setting, emotional control, persistence, prudent risk-taking, and a variety of other personality traits, those who lack insight into themselves stand at a distinct disadvantage when dealing with others-especially others with more power. Self-awareness provides an indispensable guide for exercising self-control, and for understanding and dealing with others. This is critical for good bargaining results.247

What we mean by self-awareness is the ability to monitor one’s own thoughts and emotions, with the resultant likelihood of being able to control them.248 Self-awareness and self-control are traits *60 commonly associated with “emotional intelligence,” a characteristic increasingly considered as important for success in life as pure IQ, especially in activities involving interpersonal interaction.249

Negotiators who seek to gain a better measure of self-awareness should consider two separate approaches. First, they should undertake a personal self-assessment of their negotiation style, including strengths and weaknesses.250 Second, they should approach family and friends who will speak candidly to ask for feedback, good and bad, on their interpersonal styles, including their negotiation behavior. Although we all have self-images about how we interact with others, our peers do not necessarily share those impressions.251

It is critical to obtain as clear a picture as possible about how others see us. Without such a perspective, negotiators cannot be effective in communicating their concerns and persuading others to agree to their proposals. This seems particularly so in negotiations with more powerful parties where a brave face may be called for and where showing fear may be fatal. The ability to remain calm at moments when an opponent is flexing muscles requires a strong measure of confidence and self-control. Without a clear sense of self, one will find such control difficult to achieve.

*61 C. The Need for Careful Preparation

When asked for suggestions of useful negotiation tricks and techniques, we usually respond that the “dark” secret of effective bargaining is that there are no surefire tricks252 other than the need for careful preparation. Those who have prepared carefully and thoroughly, we believe, rarely find themselves taken advantage of by opponents’ ploys and dirty tricks.

Of all the advice proffered by experts in the field, both academic and practitioner, none matches in strength and unanimity the call for careful planning and preparation in negotiation.253 Preparation in this context means more than just learning as many facts as possible *62 about the issues likely to arise in the discussions, although that is certainly important. It also includes carefully crafting a flexible set of thoughts and plans for upcoming negotiations, including an attempt to look at the deal from the opponents’ perspective. Because preparation is so critical, many commentators have developed useful checklists and planning guides.254 We think it helpful to review some of the advice they offer, especially as it relates to preparing for bargaining in situations with power imbalances.

1. Determining Goals and Interests

Before entering a negotiation, one needs to be clear what it is that one seeks from the deal. Although this may appear to be simple, most knowledgeable observers suggest that it is not.255 Goals determination involves more than describing a desired end position; it also requires assessing why one seeks a particular goal or goals. As Roger Fisher and William Ury, in their classic exposition on negotiation, Getting To Yes, so insightfully observe, those who negotiate over positions without focusing on the underlying interests behind the positions,256 create enormous and unnecessary obstacles to reaching *63 effective agreements.257 Identifying and sharing interests with one’s opponents injects a substantial degree of flexibility into a negotiation because there are typically a number of ways to satisfy interests, many of which both sides find completely compatible.258 For example, two sides that vie for a tract of land may find that one wants it for logging purposes and the other to convert it into a pasture for raising livestock. In this case, the parties should be able to accommodate each other’s interests without substantial conflict. Unless they reveal their interests to one another, however, they may never get past their competing positions.

Identifying one’s own interests is only part of the planning process. One also needs to assess, as well as can be done, the likely goals and interests of one’s opponent.259 This requires a degree of research and information gathering.260 The payoff is obvious. Determining what one’s opponent seeks enables a negotiator to develop ways to guard against overreaching and to satisfy an opponent’s interests in the most effective and least costly manner possible.

*64 2. Target Points, Aspiration Bases, Walkaway Points, BATNAs, and MSPs

Because it is not possible to ascertain with certainty what one’s adversary seeks and why, astute negotiators rarely approach bargaining with an absolutely fixed goal in mind. To the contrary, effective bargaining requires a degree of flexibility in selecting goals, with most successful negotiators choosing a range of possible satisfactory deals and then trying to attain those most favorable to them.

As a starting point, one needs to identify what experts call a “target point,”261 “maximum plausible position (MPP),”262 or “aspiration base.”263 These terms all refer to the most favorable outcome of negotiation that is achievable. While it may be unlikely that one’s highest aspirations can be achieved, selecting a lofty goal still makes sense since high aspirations, other things being equal, tend more often to produce favorable results.264 Accordingly, we urge negotiators, especially those inclined to timidity, to be expansive in this calculation. To do this successfully, one needs to do more than just select a high target; one needs both to develop persuasive arguments in support of the goal and then to press those arguments on the other party with conviction.

Beyond developing one’s target point, MPP, or aspiration base, one next needs to determine those terms or points that, although not ideal, appear realistic and most likely to be acceptable to the other *65 side.265 Because one’s opponent is likely making the same calculation from the opposite direction, these are the points at which agreement is most probable.

Finally, one needs a bottom line. This is particularly crucial against an opponent with superior bargaining power who seems determined to push his or her advantage to the fullest. It also helps where a negotiator finds that an adversary has goals and interests that fail to overlap with his or hers at all. Sometimes an opponent will insist on an agreement that is actually worse for the negotiator than if no deal had been struck. Bargainers need always to keep the “no deal” option in mind, especially because the time and energy they have invested in bargaining too often tug them towards reaching an agreement-any agreement.266 To avoid favoring bad deals over no deals, therefore, one needs to determine in advance of a negotiation what we call a “walkaway point,” i.e., the point at which rejecting a deal constitutes a superior alternative to taking the other side’s best offer. Virtually all negotiation experts advise this, although they often use different terms to describe walkaway point. Fisher and Ury use the term “BATNA,” or the “Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement,” to describe the concept.267 Schoonmaker calls it “MSP,” or “Minimum Settlement Point.268 Craver refers to it as the “resistance point.”269 All, however, advance the same notion: notwithstanding the temptation to justify sunk costs by accepting a *66 bad deal, sometimes the only reasonable thing to do is to reject an offer.

It is not enough to determine one’s own BATNA or walkaway point. One must, in addition, try to assess the other side’s walkaway point as well. Interpreting another’s interests and goals obviously involves a degree of speculation, with the possibility of substantial miscalculation. Nonetheless, computing an opponent’s walkaway point helps steer the impending discussion towards the proper issues270 and provides a realistic sense of the awaiting bargaining challenges.271

Calculating one’s BATNA or walkaway point is central to the bargaining power that each party brings to the table. For example, assume the case of a prospective employee negotiating a starting salary with a multinational corporation. Given the mismatch in resources, one might assume that the individual would have virtually no ability to push for high pay against such a powerful entity. Consider, however, how the calculation changes if the prospective employee carries a highly sought after skill set and has two other pending job offers at extremely high starting salaries. At that point, the employee has an extremely powerful walkaway point and can afford to press the company hard for salary or other concessions. Given the prospective employee’s potent walkaway point, the power equation in the negotiation has shifted dramatically.272

One final comment about walkaway points: it does little good when negotiating to trip across one’s walkaway point and end the bargaining with no advance warning to the other side. Instead, as this point is approached, one needs to give increasingly emphatic signals that one’s limit is being reached, so that the other party is fairly alerted before crossing it. Unexpectedly terminating a negotiation *67 typically serves only to annoy one’s adversary and to harden his or her resistance to one’s proposals.273

3. Information Exchange: Seeking Answers and Resisting Inquiries

Preparing for a negotiation presents a number of complex information exchange issues. Because information constitutes one of the most significant ways to boost power in a negotiation, acquiring information becomes vital to any negotiator, especially one who senses that the other side brings substantially greater power to the table. Accordingly, researching one’s opponent, all relevant market conditions, one’s alternatives, the other side’s alternatives, and so on helps meet the critical need of shifting power in a favorable direction.

In addition to conducting basic research prior to bargaining, one must prepare thoroughly for seeking and disclosing information during the negotiation. Parties rarely step immediately into discussing proposals with no preliminaries. Rather, they typically exchange pleasantries, engage in small talk, and then move to exploring each other’s goals and interests. Excellent negotiators thoroughly plan for these exchanges, identifying the information they will seek, assembling the data they are willing to disclose and developing responses to resist revealing matters they wish to keep confidential.

We strongly recommend planning how to disclose information to the other side. There are often things, such as price and terms, that one wishes to disclose, but how and when to do so requires careful thought. An overly eager or premature disclosure may well signal insecurity or weakness; an unduly late or cryptic disclosure may indicate a desire to cover up damaging information. Similarly, it is useful to anticipate what the other party should want to disclose and then determine whether he or she in fact does so. For example, if one is purchasing a used automobile, the seller should want to share the good news about how well the car runs and how carefully it has been maintained. The seller’s failure to disclose this information is often as important as what he or she actually reveals.

*68 A word of caution: while positive information exchanges almost always enhance the opportunities for excellent agreements, parties should not begin disclosing sensitive information immediately and unilaterally. Those who do can fall into a deadly trap. Unless the other side reciprocates, one becomes vulnerable to exploitation. For example, the timid negotiator who confesses how nervous he or she is invites bluster and threats from an opponent. Similarly, the negotiator who reveals how badly he or she wishes to purchase an antique automobile presents an almost irresistible temptation for the dealer to raise the price by a substantial amount.

In short, when it comes to exchanging information, the parties face what we call a “negotiator’s dilemma.”274 The negotiator’s dilemma is not unlike the classic “prisoner’s dilemma” in game theory.275 That is, when both parties fully disclose information, the chances for an excellent agreement rise dramatically because each better understands and can accommodate the other’s needs. However, if only one of the parties discloses information, he or she becomes vulnerable to exploitation by the other. When neither party discloses, the chances for an effective agreement are dimmed because neither party knows what the other wants, and it is therefore difficult to explore “win-win” options. This is illustrated below:

Although there is no perfect solution to the negotiator’s dilemma, we advise negotiators to adopt an incremental approach to information exchange. That is, as the parties explore each other’s willingness to share facts about their respective situations, each should adopt an implicit “quid pro quo” approach towards the other.276 Each should take the risk of revealing some significant information to the other *69 and then test the other’s willingness to reciprocate.277 Only if the other responds with similarly useful information should a party continue revealing information. For example, one side might reveal that, indeed, he or she strongly wishes to buy the property, but then ask how firmly set the purchase price is. If the other side responds that the price is negotiable, then the parties can move to further information exchanges about price, repairs, financing, and a closing date. At any stage of the process, however, should one party stop reciprocating, the other should check to see whether further unilateral information disclosure makes sense.

How does one go about seeking information in a negotiation? Before entering into the bargaining, a party should have independently sought as much information about the other side’s situation, interests and goals as possible.278 This should be done from all available sources, including the Internet,279 newspapers, books, as *70 well as the opponent’s friends and enemies.280 With this pre-negotiation research completed, one should next identify the information to be sought from the opponent during the negotiation. For example, one might know that the other party wishes to sell a house because he or she plans to move to another state. Knowing this, one might then seek information during the bargaining process about when and why the other side wishes to move.

Other things being equal, we advise asking for information directly (politely, in most cases).281 In doing so, one should generally begin with broad, open-ended questions such as “Will you tell me about this property?” rather than more closed, narrow questions such as “Does the basement flood when it rains?” Open-ended questions prompt the respondent to talk, and permit the questioner to acquire more information than narrow inquiries.282 Only after the open-ended questions have raised or eliminated issues should one move to more specific queries.283 Moreover, one should always be prepared to return to open-ended questions as new information needs arise or as promising information trails emerge.

Some open-ended questions work better near the end of a negotiation than at the beginning. For example, on those occasions where one has developed a sense of unease about whether the other side has been forthcoming, we suggest asking what we call the “Come Clean” question: “Is there something important known to you, but not to me, that needs to be revealed at this point?” Because of its all-encompassing nature, this question used at a critical moment can surface *71 vital information.284 Even if the other party deflects the question, his or her body language may speak volumes.

Although there are times when indirection is called for, we suspect that excessive subtlety in questioning caused by a reluctance to offend too often leads to misunderstanding and a lack of effectiveness.285 So long as one asks for information in a friendly and non-threatening way, he or she is unlikely to trigger a hostile response.286 And one needs particularly not only to listen to the answer, but also to observe the other side’s body language during responses. Body language sometimes conveys more useful information than spoken words because it is often involuntary and, therefore, revealing.287 In some cases, the nervous refusal to answer or the inability to give direct eye contact when stating a demand discloses more than the actual words of the response.288

Another reason that negotiators refrain from aggressive questioning is because they fear triggering equally aggressive questioning *72 in return. But timidity provides no guarantee that one will be spared a grilling-it may happen anyway. Accordingly, one should always prepare to be questioned exhaustively even if one has no plans for questioning the other party.289 And, in anticipation of being interrogated, one should determine what information he or she is willing to disclose and under what conditions.

In addition to providing critical strength and minimizing disclosure errors, careful preparation regarding information-seeking by one’s opponent serves another key function: it reduces the temptation to lie. Those who prepare inadequately-including even the most ethical and well-intentioned-regrettably are likely to become disingenuous or worse when faced with tough questions they have not anticipated.290 Careful preparation permits negotiators to respond to tough questions without their lies jeopardizing the process.291

To avoid information difficulties when one is questioned, one should have a prepared set of responses to deal with inquiries about information he or she does not wish to disclose. On this point, we offer a number of suggested responses:

• Offer to return to the question once the negotiation has made greater progress.292

• Offer to answer part, but not all, of the question.293