Posts Tagged ‘how to negotiate’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

No Authority / Full Authority Sales Negotiations

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009
Lacking Authority Can Leave Sales Professionals Feeling Naked In A Negotiation

Lacking Authority Can Leave Sales Professionals Feeling Naked In A Negotiation

Sales professionals really don’t like to enter into a negotiation naked. When you don’t have any authority to make concessions, you basically feel pretty naked.  Likewise, if you have full authority, then you’ve got a whole other set of problems.

Back to the poor sales negotiator who has no authority. Hold on a minute, they actually do have a lot of authority. Here’s what they have:

  • the authority to collect information and represent the other side of the table back within his organization.
  • the authority to attempt to create a “both win” type of negotiation.
  • the authority to establish both support and commitment with the other side of the table.
  • the authority to deal with different members of his organization in the role of a specialist.
  • the authority to try to reach a deal on a personal level.

The sales professional is really only prevented from giving in to any of the other side’s demands. Since he / she still has the ability to negotiate, it’s worth the effort because there is the possibility that the other side will make concessions and a deal can be struck, or at least valuable information about the other side will be collected.

If you’ve ever been in a no authority sales negotiation situation, then you’ve probably dreamed of having the ability of being in a sales negotiation where you had full authority. Careful what you wish for – this isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be.

The reason that full authority is not necessarily what you either want or need is because the name is actually misleading. Full authority simply means that whatever you agree to is what your  side of the table will end up having to do. This can lead to disaster. Here are some reasons why you might not want to have full authority when you enter a negotiation:

  1. Both sides of the table may not have equal authority.
  2. Both sides of the table may differ in stamina or physical qualities.
  3. Either side may not be properly prepared.
  4. Either side may be role playing.
  5. A side may be more secure than the other.
  6. A side may be busier than the other.
  7. A side might be more wealthy than the other.
  8. A side might be more emotionally involved than the other.
  9. Either side may have better support staff.

Should you find yourself in a sales negotiation with full authority, all is not lost. There are several ways that you can get out of this predicament. Here are a couple of suggestions:

  • Say that you are not familiar with how things operate.
  • Indicate that you will need to check with the board of directors.
  • State that there is a legal problem.
  • State that you need to check with a government agency.
  • Say that this may involve anti-trust issues.
  • Indicate that this deal actually depends on another deal that is currently being negotiated separately.
  • State that you have to tell your coworker / partner.

If none of these “escape” techniques work for you, you can always fall back on the old reliable – “I don’t know”. You may feel foolish for saying it, but at least you won’t end up negotiating a bad deal.

Have you ever entered into a negotiation with no ability to make concessions? How did you feel? How did that negotiation turn out? Have you ever had full authority in a negotiation? How did that turn out? Leave me a comment and let me know what you are thinking.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in authority | No Comments »

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 | 3 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 | 13 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 »

3 Steps To Building A Better Negotiation

Thursday, October 30th, 2008
Trust, Rapport, and Satisfaction Are Key Steps In Any Negotiation

Trust, Rapport, and Satisfaction Are Key Steps In Any Negotiation

If you really wanted to, you could go into any negotiation with your guns a-blazing and through dirty tricks, intimidation and other techniques probably get your way. However, you would have established a reputation as someone that nobody wants to do business with. In the end, you would have lost much more than you would have gained. Instead, if you establish a reputation as a tough but fair negotiator whose word can be trusted, then everyone will want to do business with you.

Lots of people don’t understand that during a negotiation you are really creating three different things: trust, rapport, and satisfaction. Instead of viewing a negotiation as a “winner takes all” type of competition, if you can view it as more of a construction project, then you’ll be well on your way to being a successful negotiator.

Trust is a word that we all think that we know and understand; however, we are often too quick to dismiss it when it comes to establishing goals for a negotiation. The first rule of trust is don’t even start to negotiate with someone that you don’t trust – without this basic foundation, the discussions will end up going nowhere. Sometimes when I’m working with people who are just starting out in negotiations, they make the mistake of associating trust with giving in to the other side’s demands. No, no, no! During a negotiation you need to be pushing back, working to get what YOU want from the other side. Just about any tactic (unless they are immoral or illegal) is permitted. However, when everything is said and done, you need to live up to your side of the agreement. Ultimately, this is what trust is all about.

Rapport sure sounds like something fancy, but in reality all it is is a feeling that is deeper than trust. You can think about it as a form of being “tuned-in” to the other side of the table in such a way that you understand them. When we are involved in a business negotiation, having rapport with the other side means that both sides respect each other, both sides actually like each other, and both sides are willing to do whatever it takes to make a deal happen.

The last bit of construction that needs to be done during a negotiation is to build satisfaction on both sides of the table. What this means is that it’s actually very important for you to spend some time thinking about how the other side of the table is going to be feeling when they stand up after the negotiations are over. If they are going to be feeling beaten down, betrayed, taken advantage of, or abused, then you have not done your job. Instead you’ve built a foe that will come back and cause you problems in the future. This where the idea of being viewed as a “fair” negotiator comes in to play. When people deal with a fair negotiator they realize that they are going to have to give in on some items; however, they also expect to get their way on other items. In the end, they expect to walk away from the table with a sense of satisfaction that they were able to negotiate a good deal for themselves.

During your last negotiation did you feel that you could trust the other side? Were you able to establish a rapport with the other side and did it help move the negotiations along? When the negotiation was over, do you think that both sides were satisfied with the way that things came out? Leave me a comment and let me know what you are thinking.

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

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »