Let¡¯s talk about win-win negotiating. Instead of trying to dominate the \rother person and trick him into doing things he wouldn¡¯t normally do, I \rbelieve that you should work with the other person to work out your \rproblems and develop a solution with which both of you can win.

Your reaction to that may be, ¡°Roger, you obviously don¡¯t know much \rabout my industry. I live in a dog-eat-dog world. The people with whom I \rnegotiate don¡¯t take any prisoners. They eat their young. There¡¯s no \rsuch thing as win-win in my industry. When I¡¯m selling I¡¯m obviously \rtrying to get the highest price I possibly can, and the buyer is obviously \rtrying to get the lowest possible price. When I¡¯m buying the reverse is \rtrue. How on Earth can we both win?¡±

So, let¡¯s start out with the most important issue: What do we mean when \rwe say win-win? Does it really mean that both sides win? Or does it \rmean that both sides lose equally so that it¡¯s fair? What if each side \rthinks that they won and the other side lost¡ªwould that be win-win? \rBefore you dismiss that possibility think about it more. What if you¡¯re \rselling something and leave the negotiation thinking, ¡°I won. I would \rhave dropped the price even more if the other person had been a better \rnegotiator¡±? However the other person is thinking that she won and that \rshe would have paid more if you had been a better negotiator. So both \rof you think that you won and the other person lost. Is that win-win? Yes, \rI believe it is, as long as it¡¯s a permanent feeling. As long as neither of \ryou wakes up tomorrow morning thinking, ¡°Son of a gun, now I know \rwhat he did to me. Wait until I see him again.¡±

That¡¯s why I stress doing the things that service the perception that the \rother side won, such as:

Don¡¯t jump at the first offer.

Ask for more than you expect to get.

Flinch at the other side¡¯s proposals.

Avoid confrontation.

Play Reluctant Buyer or Reluctant Seller.

Use the Vise gambit: You¡¯ll have to do better than that.

Use Higher Authority and Good Guy/Bad Guy to make them think you¡¯re \ron their side.

Never offer to split the difference.

Set aside impasse issues.

Always ask for a trade-off and never make a concession without a \rreciprocal concession.

Taper down your concessions.

Position the other side for easy acceptance.

Besides constantly servicing the perceptions that the other side won, \robserve these four fundamental rules:

Rule one of win-win negotiating: Don¡¯t narrow it down to just one issue

The first thing to learn is this: Don¡¯t narrow the negotiation down to just \rone issue. If, for example, you resolve all the other issues and the only \rthing left to negotiate is price, somebody does have to win and \rsomebody does have to lose. As long as you keep more than one issue \ron the table, you can always work trade-offs so that the other person \rdoesn¡¯t mind conceding on price because you are able to offer \rsomething in return.

Sometimes buyers try to treat your product as a commodity by saying, \r¡°We buy this stuff by the ton. As long as it meets our specifications we \rdon¡¯t mind who made it or where it comes from.¡± They are trying to treat \rthis as a one issue negotiation to persuade you that the only way you \rcan make a meaningful concession is to lower your price. When that¡¯s \rthe case you should do everything possible to put other issues, such as \rdelivery, terms, packaging, and guarantees onto the table so that you \rcan use these items for trade-offs and get away from the perception that \rthis is a one-issue negotiation.

At a seminar, a commercial real estate sales person came up to me. He \rwas excited because he¡¯d almost completed negotiating a contract for a \rvery large commercial building. ¡°We¡¯ve been working on it now for over \ra year,¡± he said. ¡°And we¡¯ve almost got it resolved. In fact, we¡¯ve \rresolved everything except price, and we¡¯re only $72,000 apart.¡± I \rflinched because I knew that now that he¡¯d narrowed it down to one \rissue, then there had to be a winner and there had to be a loser. \rHowever close they may be, they were probably heading for trouble. \rIn a one-issue negotiation, you should add other elements so that you \rcan trade them off later and appear to be making concessions.

So if you find yourself deadlocked with a one-issue negotiation, you \rshould try adding other issues into the mix. Fortunately, usually many \rmore elements than just the one main issue are important in \rnegotiations. The art of win-win negotiating is to piece together those \relements like putting together a jigsaw puzzle so that both people can \rwin. Rule one is, don¡¯t narrow the negotiations down to just one issue. \rWhile we may resolve impasses by finding a common ground on small \rissues to keep the negotiation moving, you should never narrow it down \rto one issue.

Rule two of win-win negotiating: People are not out for the same thing

Rule number two that makes you a win-win negotiator is the \runderstanding that people are not out for the same thing. We all have an \roverriding tendency to assume that other people want what we want, \rand because of this we believe that what¡¯s important to us will be \rimportant to them. But that¡¯s not true.

The biggest trap into which neophyte negotiators fall is assuming that \rprice is the dominant issue in a negotiation. Many other elements, other \rthan price, that are important to the other person.

You must convince her of the quality of your product or service. \rHe needs to know that you will deliver on time.

She wants to know that you will give adequate management supervision \rto their account. How flexible are you on payment terms?

Does your company have the financial strength to be a partner of theirs?

Do you have the support of a well-trained and motivated work force?

These all come into play, along with half-a-dozen other factors. When \ryou have satisfied the other person that you can meet all those \rrequirements, then, and only then, does price become a deciding factor.\rSo, the second key to win-win negotiating is this: Don¡¯t assume that they \rwant what you want. Because if you do, you further make the \rassumption that anything you do in the negotiations to help them get \rwhat they want helps them and hurts you.

Win-win negotiating can come about only when you understand that \rpeople don¡¯t want the same things in the negotiation. So Power \rNegotiating becomes not just a matter of getting what you want, but also \rbeing concerned about the other person getting what he or she wants. \rOne of the most powerful thoughts you can have when you¡¯re \rnegotiating with someone is not: ¡±What can I get from them?¡± but ¡°What \rcan I give them that won¡¯t take away from my position?¡± Because when \ryou give people what they want, they will give you what you want in a \rnegotiation.

Rule three of win-win negotiating: Don¡¯t try to get the last dollar off the \rtable

The third key to win-win negotiating is this: Don¡¯t be too greedy. Don¡¯t try \rto get the last dollar off the table. You may feel that you triumphed, but \rdoes that help you if the other person felt that you vanquished him? That \rlast dollar left on the table is a very expensive dollar to pick up. A man \rwho attended my seminar in Tucson told me that he was able to buy the \rcompany that he owned because the other potential buyer made that \rmistake. The other person had negotiated hard and pushed the seller to \rthe brink of frustration. As a final Nibble, the buyer said, ¡°You are going \rto put new tires on that pickup truck before you transfer title aren¡¯t you?¡±

That straw broke the proverbial camel¡¯s back. The owner reacted \rangrily, refused to sell his company to him, and instead sold it to the \rman at my seminar.

So, don¡¯t try to get it all, but leave something on the table so that the \rother person feels that she won also.

Rule four of win-win negotiating: Put something back on the table\rThe fourth key to win-win negotiating is this: Put something back on the \rtable when the negotiation is over. I don¡¯t mean by telling them that \ryou¡¯ll give them a discount over and above what they negotiated. I mean \rdo something more than you promised to do. Give them a little extra \rservice. Care about them a little more than you have to. Then you¡¯ll find \rthat the little extra for which they didn¡¯t have to negotiate means more to \rthem that everything for which they did have to negotiate.

Now let me recap what I believe about win-win negotiating:

People have different personality styles, and because of this, they \rnegotiate differently. You must understand your personality style, and, if \rit¡¯s different from the other person, you must adapt your style of \rnegotiating to theirs.

The different styles mean that in a negotiation, different people have \rdifferent goals, relationships, styles, faults, and different methods of \rgetting what they want.

Winning is a perception, and by constantly servicing the perception that \rthe other person is winning you can convince him that he has won \rwithout having to make any concessions to him.

Don¡¯t narrow the negotiation down to just one issue.

Don¡¯t assume that helping the other person get what he wants takes \raway from your position. You¡¯re not out for the same thing. Poor \rnegotiators try to force the other person to get off the positions that \rthey¡¯ve taken. Power negotiators know that even when positions are \r180 degrees apart the interests of both sides can be identical, so they \rwork to get people off their positions and concentrating on their \rinterests.

Don¡¯t be greedy. Don¡¯t try to get the last dollar off the table.\rPut something back on the table. Do more than they bargained for.

Roger Dawson
\rFounder of the Power Negotiating Institute
\r800-932-9766
\rRogDawson@aol.com
\rhttp://www.rdawson.com