Archive for February, 2009

Sales Negotiators Should Always Have Limited Authority – Or Else!

Tuesday, February 24th, 2009

Sales Negotiators Who Have Authority Limits Can Use This To Their Advantage

Sales Negotiators Who Have Authority Limits Can Use This To Their Advantage

Do you run the world yet? I’m going to guess that the answer is no (if it isn’t, then we need to talk). When we talk about being successful in a sales negotiation, we often spend a lot of time trying to figure out how we can get more negotiating power on our side. However, sometimes NOT having negotiating power can work to our benefit…

If you are in charge, then the other side can always pressure you to make a decision because they know that you are the ultimate decision making authority. However, if you don’t have the ability to make the final decision, if you instead have limited authority, then there can be a number of benefits:

  1. Gives you the ability to say no gracefully if needed.
  2. Gives you room to back off and assess your position.
  3. Give you the ability to go check with experts.
  4. Give you the right to review the evidence.
  5. Give you the ability to take the time to look for mistakes.
  6. Gives you the time that you need to read the fine print.
  7. Gives you the ability to bring up undefined questions.
  8. Gives you the ability to write a better argument.
  9. Gives you the right to coordinate the decision.
  10. Gives you the ability to move the negotiation away from an unacceptable position.

As you can see from this list, what some would see as disadvantages during a negotiation can also be seen as advantages. Keep in mind that it’s really how you make use of something that determines if it is an advantage or a disadvantage.

The negotiation experts are often split when it comes to what types of limits on authority are more valuable than others. However, Dr. Karrass believes that  the best kind of limits on your authority are statutory or administrative limits. The other side will quickly understand that you are faced with these types of limits and in fact may enter the negations with the expectations that you have these limits.

Next in line comes dollar limits (managers can sign off on so much, Directors so much more, and VPs even more). The other side may be least receptive to hearing that you are dealing with people limits because these often seem to be things that you should be able to work through.

One thing that you are going to have to keep in mind is just how willing the other side is going to be to deal with you despite the limits on your authority. You may find that corporate policy limits are the ones that cause the most problems during a negotiation because they can be the most difficult limits to either change or circumvent.

There are a great number of different types of authority limits that you may be faced with during any given negotiation. The specific details of the negotiation will define the limits that are placed on you. No matter what limits are present, they can generally be placed in one or more common “buckets”:

  • Money limits
  • Term limits
  • Policy limits
  • Legal limits
  • Design limits
  • Group approval limits

In the end, when you find yourself in a negotiation with a number of limits placed on you, take a moment to understand how you can use these limits to boost your negotiating power.

Have you entered a sales negotiation with limits on your authority? Did you see this as a disadvantage or as an advantage? How did that negotiation turn out? Leave me a comment and let me know what you are thinking.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in power | 2 Comments »

Classic Sales Negotiation Tactic: I’ve Got To Talk To My Boss…

Tuesday, February 17th, 2009
The Escalating Authority Sales Tactic Is Crude But Often Works

The Escalating Authority Sales Tactic Is Crude But Often Works

Picture this scene: it was about 20 years ago (ouch!) and I was still dating my wife when she suddenly had to replace her car. She knew exactly what she wanted: a Honda Civic with a manual transmission. There was a local Honda dealer near where she lived so one evening we went there to have a talk about buying a car.

The salesman that we talked with was the “older guy who reminds you of your uncle” variety. I had an opportunity to sit back and watch my soon-to-be-my-wife bargain with him over the price. She started low, he started high, and after a bit of back-and-forth, they were still fairly far apart. Now my bride-to-be had done her homework and had called a bank to find out how much this car was really worth (20 years ago = no real Internet). So she knew what the correct outcome of this sales negotiation needed to be.

The salesman that we were dealing with looked at the gap in offered / accepted prices and said, of course, “are you sure that you can’t do any better than this”. When my girlfriend said “No”. He then said “I’m going to have to go talk with my boss about this…” And off he went.

Returning about 10 minutes later, he had a slightly lower price, but still the gulf between what my girlfriend was willing to pay and his new lower price was great. TWO MORE TIMES HE WENT BACK TO TALK WITH HIS BOSS. I couldn’t believe this – I was watching a classic Greek play being staged before my very eyes. At any rate, my girlfriend got the price that she was asking for in the end after about 90 minutes of haggling. What was going on here?

I didn’t know the name of this sales negotiation tactic at the time, but I do now. It’s called the “Escalating Authority” tactic. This tactic uses the need to have a deal approved by a reluctant higher authority in order to gain more concessions from the other side of the table.

This tactic is used by salespeople all the time. The reason that they use it is because it often works. Here’s what a salesperson can expect to get out of using the “Escalating Authority” tactic:

  • Helps to lower the other side’s expectations.
  • Causes the other side’s arguments to come out early instead of later.
  • May cause conflict within the other side’s negotiating team.
  • Causes the other side to state their negotiating demands earlier.
  • Just physically wears the other side down.
  • May end up lowering the self-confidence of the other side.
  • Uses up the other side’s valuable time.

The party that this tactic is being used on is not without defenses. There are several counter measures that can be put in place in order to diminish or eliminate the effectiveness of this sales negotiation tactic:

  • Match the other side: bring your higher level people to the table when they say that they need to go to their higher level people.
  • Walk out.
  • Bypass the other side of the table and go directly to their senior management.
  • Manage the expectations of a quick resolution on your side of the table.
  • Communicate to your side of the table what tactic is being used against you and let them know that one of its goals is to lower their expectations for the outcome of this sales negotiation.
  • Don’t repeat yourself. Force the other side of the table to relay all that you have said to each higher level of their management.

In the end, the Escalating Authority tactic is a fairly crude negotiating tool that is used most often by amateur negotiators. It can be countered easily and effectively. Keep your eyes open and make sure that you spot it when someone starts to use it on you – the best Escalating Authority tacic defense is a good offense!

Have you ever had the Escalating Authority tactic used on you during a negotiation? How did you respond to it? In the end was it successful? Have you ever had a chance to use it during a negotiation? Leave me a comment and let me know what you are thinking.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in how to negotiate | 4 Comments »

A Sales Negotiator’s Guide To Dealing With A Deadlock

Tuesday, February 10th, 2009
A Deadlock During A Negotiation Can Bring Things To A Screeching Halt

A Deadlock During A Negotiation Can Bring Things To A Screeching Halt

When driving a car, the #1 thing that most of us fear is hitting a wall. Or another car. Or pretty much anything that would cause us to come to a complete stop quickly. Why are we so afraid of this? Well duh – it will damage / destroy the car that we’re in, delay or prevent us from getting to where we want to go, and may even result in damage to us. The same thing can happen during a negotiation, but we call it a deadlock.

A deadlock occurs when both sides have not yet reached an agreement and all of a sudden they reach an issue that they fundamentally cannot agree on. If negotiating was a board game, then there would be no possible moves for either side to take – deadlock.

If you are a negative person you might be willing to give up and walk away. Lots of people do. A deadlock is a powerful thing and it can affect both sides of the the negotiating table in the following ways:

  • A deadlock tests the resolve and the strength of both sides.
  • A deadlock often forces both sides to be willing to give more concessions after it occurs.
  • A deadlock is a signal to both sides of the table that what they want out of the negotiation might not be possible.
  • A deadlock can cause both sides to reduce what they expect to get out of the negotiations.
  • A deadlock can mess up schedules for both sides.
  • A deadlock can make a negotiation more expensive and riskier for both sides.

So this all seems like it’s pretty serious stuff. However, there’s more.

Both sides of a negotiation realize going in that a deadlock can occur. The key thing that you as a negotiator need to determine is which side fears a deadlock more. Generally speaking, the larger an organization is and the more layers that it has in its management structure, the less able it is to deal with a deadlock. If you are willing to risk not walking away with a deal, then your negotiating power may be greater than the other side’s.

No matter how much power you think that you have, what every negotiator needs to realize is that when a deadlock occurs during a negotiation, it’s the negotiators responsibility to find a way to resolve it. A deadlock can have a significant impact on a negotiator’s career in the following ways:

  • You may get criticized by your own management.
  • You may end up getting extra work in order to resolve this deadlock.
  • You may lose your job.
  • You may have a personal sense of failure.
  • You may become frustrated.
  • You may lose friends and damage relationships.
  • You may make people angry with you.
  • You may lose self-confidence.
  • You may start to question your own business judgment.

So there is a lot of personal risk going on here. What’s a negotiator to do? One key action that you can take occurs before the negotiations start. Every negotiation is really a team event – it’s not just you sitting on your side of the table, it’s really you, your team,  and your management structure. If you take the time to discuss the possibility of deadlocks, what might cause them, where in the negotiations they might occur, and how best to deal with them then you’ll avoid a lot of the consternation that a deadlock can cause your team.

One final point – don’t give up just because you encounter a deadlock. In fact, the longer that the negotiations have gone on before the deadlock was encountered, the better your chances of being able to restart the discussions are. The more effort that has gone into the negotiations will mean that neither side wants to let a deadlock stop progress from being made…

Have you ever encountered a deadlock during a negotiation? Did this cause the negotiations to stop? What did you do to try to restart the negotiations? Were you successful? Leave me a comment and let me know what you are thinking.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in deadlock | 2 Comments »

Negotiation Battle: Tom Hanks vs. Mel Gibson

Thursday, February 5th, 2009
The SAG And The Studios Are Deadlocked In Their Negations, Now What?

The SAG And The Studios Are Deadlocked In Their Negations, Now What?

In the world of Hollywood, they have the ability to make the unreal seem oh so real. However, right now they are having a great deal of difficulty negotiating to make a contract between the big movie studios and the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) become a reality. Are we going to be looking at another actors strike?

Perhaps a bit of a background is needed here. The SAG is a 120,000 member union that represents, what else, actors. The SAG is currently negotiating with the major studios to create a new contract for its members – their old contact ran out back in June.

This type of negotiation is fairly common. However, what’s making it interesting this time around is that there appears to be a difference in opinion on how best to negotiate within the SAG. This is causing a split to occur and may be significantly reducing the SAG’s negotiating power.

Within the SAG there are two groups that are taking differing views of how the negotiations need to proceed. The first group, called Members First,  is lead by the SAG’s president Alan Rosenberg and their Executive Director Doug Allen. Doug also happens to be the SAG’s chief negotiator. The second group calls itself Unite for Strength and has won several key seats on the board and now, by aligning with other board members,  has a slight majority.

So what’s the issue here?

Currently the SAG is in deadlock in their negotiations with the big studios. The Members First team wants to have the SAG members vote to authorize a strike if the negotiating team needs to call one. The Unite for Strength team wants the board to vote against having a strike vote as well as having them replace the current negotiating team. Talk about bad blood!

If the Unite for Strength team got their way, then they would probably try to jump-start the stalled negotiations with the studios. They would go along with the pay terms for new media that other unions have negotiated with the studios as  an exchange for getting improvements in the traditional media pay areas.

Why does the Unite for Strength team not want a strike vote to be taken? They believe that a strike now would be a poor decision based on the current economic state of the country.

Tom Hanks supports the Unite for Strength team. Mel Gibson supports the Members First team.

Just to make things a bit more complicated, the studios are insisting that their current offer on the table is their final offer. It contains some provisions that no SAG members likes such as a proposal to eliminate mandatory meal times (I mean come on, an actor has got to eat…)

So what should a negotiator make of all of this back-and-forth?

First, the public SAG split is bad news for the actors because it transfers power to the studios. When the other side of the table is in disagreement, your position is stronger. However, this also means that reaching an agreement with the SAG will be more difficult – the studios need to get all of the SAG to agree to a new contract.

It looks like SAG has done a poor job of PLANNING their side of the negotiation. There is a critical question of what is more important: money from traditional (films, TV) media or money from new (DVD, Web) media. Pick your poison, but this is an issue that all of the SAG needs to get behind.

Both sides of the table are at fault for allowing the deadlock to continue for six months. One subtle point here is that the studios may be willing to live with a deadlock because there is no current threat of a strike and the longer they wait, the greater the split within the SAG grows.

If the SAG replaces their negotiating team, then there will be a great deal of negotiating ground that will need to be revisited as the two negotiating teams meet for the first time and work out their negotiating positions.

What’s to be learned from this negotiating mess? A couple of key points: negotiations need to be planned out before discussions start so that inter-team squabbling can be taken care of BEFORE the talks start. Next, replacing a negotiating team during negotiations is a radical step that should be avoided at all costs – it’s just too expensive in terms of time. There’s a lot more to learn here, but I’m pretty sure that time will reveal what mistakes were made and which side ended up with more negotiating power…

If you were a member of the SAG, which team would you want to be a part of (the Tom Hanks team or the Mel Gibson team)? Who do you think has the stronger position in the negotiations right now? What would your next steps be if you were the studios? Leave me a comment and let me know what you are thinking.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in strike | 11 Comments »

Deadline? We Don’t Need No Stinkin Deadline…

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009
Deadlines Show Up During Negotiations, But Are They Real?

Deadlines Show Up During Negotiations, But Are They Real?

What would the world of negotiating be without deadlines? I can tell you that Hollywood movies would lose a lot of their plot if the bad guys couldn’t set impossible deadlines for our heroes to try to meet. What about real life – why do people use deadlines while negotiating?

It’s actually pretty simple, a deadline is an effective communication tool. Deadlines can be used by either side to apply pressure to the other side and force them to make a choice. If the party that’s under pressure chooses to accept the deadline, then the deal will be done. Otherwise, who knows?

You see, the trick with deadlines is that when you are presented with one you can never be quite sure that it’s real. In the game of poker this is called bluffing. The one thing that we do know about a deadline is that if we accept it, everything will be resolved. However, there will always be that unanswered question as to what would have happened if we had not met the deadline…

One solid piece of advice is given by experienced negotiators: always be skeptical of any deadline that you encounter during a negotiation. These types of fixed time limits have a tendency to come and go.

Now having said this, you also have to realize that in real life sometimes a deadline is real. If you choose to not meet it, then you are running the very real risk that this may kill the deal once and for all.

In order to help you see your way through the deadline maze, here are three questions that you need to ask yourself anytime that you encounter a deadline during a negotiation:

  1. For The Other Side: what deadlines do you know about that the other side has to live with? Do you know what will happen if they miss their deadlines?
  2. For You: what deadlines have been placed on me by either my team, my organization, or myself? Will these deadlines limit how effective I can be during this negotiation?
  3. Renegotiation: Is is possible for my team to renegotiate any of the deadlines that have been placed on us by our own people? Who says that we can or cannot?

As much as we all dread having the other side throw a deadline at us, we need to remember that deadlines are an effective tool that we have in our own bag of tricks. Studies of negotiations have been done and they have revealed that deadlines do one thing very well – they force the other side to make a decision.

All too often in a negotiation, things can be dragging on for too long. If you find yourself in this situation where the other side appears to be resisting making up their minds, then perhaps a deadline is called for.

This type of situation often shows up when the other side is faced with an especially difficult decision. They will drag their feet longer in order to avoid having to make up their mind. If you can convey to them that there is a sense of legitimacy to your deadline, then you can use this powerful tool to close the deal faster.

Have you ever been presented with a deadline during a negotiation? Were you able to determine if it was a real deadline? Did you meet the deadline or did you skip it? What happened then? Leave me a comment and let me know what you are thinking.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in tactic | 1 Comment »