Women in Negotiation Part 2

“Mr. Gitou, the last time we spoke you said one of the problems women have in negotiating is they focus too much on the relationship,” said Janice Lumere. “But when I joined the sales group I read some of your Deal Whisperer articles and it seems to me that you focus a great deal on relationship building. Isn’t that inconsistent?”

(See "Women in Negotiation Part 1" at http://dealwhisperers.blogspot.com/2011/10/women-in-negotiation.html)

Tyler Gitou leaned back in his chair and smiled. “That’s an excellent observation,” he said. “The difference is in the balancing.”

“Balancing of what?”

“Here’s an example. Imagine you are trying to close your first deal as a new sales rep for an existing client. It’s a big deal. You get down to the day of signing and the client says, ‘You know Janice, we looked over the pricing and we feel you guys still have room to move. We do a lot of business with your company and we think we’re entitled to a two percent cut.’ What do you say?”

Janice straightened up in her seat. “Well, that’s a tough one. I mean, if I say no to a long-term client, what will that do to…” Janice couldn’t bring herself to finish the sentence.

“The relationship?” Tyler said. “Suppose you say, ‘We really don’t have any room to move. That’s the price.’ Then the client replies, ‘Wow, you’re a lot less friendly than the last rep we had. We were able to work with Mike. I didn’t know the company was sending in a hardliner.’ What do you think of that comment?”

Janice thought for a moment. “Like I did something wrong and maybe I should soften my approach.”

“Why?”

“To preserve the…” Again, Janice was stuck on the last word.

“Relationship,” Tyler said. “How did the comment make you feel?”

“It felt unfair.”

“Unfair how?” Tyler asked.

“Like I was being played.”

“Exactly,” Tyler said. “It was a tactic and what you were feeling was the tension of ‘legitimacy.’ His last-minute request for a price cut lacked legitimacy and triggered your ‘fairness’ antenna. In order to maintain a disciplined and balanced approach in negotiations, each party needs to test the legitimacy of the other party’s requests. When a negotiator lacks legitimacy, he will use tactics to leverage two other elements: relationship and BATNA. Either you’re hurting the relationship by not saying ‘yes’ or if you don’t say ‘yes’ he will go to the competition.”

“So how do I respond to that?”

“Ask him to explain the need for the ask. I would say, ‘My first concern is your perception of our price. We have been working over these numbers for the last three months and I have provided complete transparency into what’s required to do this project well. What has created a perception that we have room to move’?”

“That’s good,” Janice said.

“Keep going. You play the client. What does he say back?”

“He says, ‘Come on, Janice. You guys are always holding something back. I know how this game is played. We’re just looking to get the lowest price possible.”

“The lowest price?” Tyler asked. “Or the best price? Because we can provide a lower price but it will mean putting more risk back into the deal. My goal was to balance your interests around price, risk and quality. We can move those levers around to reduce price if you want to take more risk or reduce scope.”

“Just take it out of your margin,” Janice said. “Do it for the relationship.” She smiled.

“Believe it or not, I am doing this because I am focused on the relationship,” Tyler said. “I want the kind of business relationship that is built on mutual trust to drive mutual success. You have been a great client for many years and you deserve the type of relationship where we provide our best price and then the transparency to show you how we got there. If you want us to quote a price with ‘room to move’ so we can do some positional back and forth, I can do that too. But that adds transactional friction and inefficiency into the negotiations.”

“Wow,” Janice said. “That was like negotiation judo. Now I feel like I’ve hurt the relationship by asking for the price cut!”

“That’s the power of understanding a party’s perceptions and testing legitimacy,” Tyler said. “When a Deal Whisperer feels the tingle of the fairness antenna, the question to ask is ‘Why? Why this? Why now?’ Seek to understand the legitimacy of the other party’s ask in an unconditionally constructive way and you may end up helping them see the unfairness of the ask and the impact on the relationship with that type of behavior.”

Janice stood up. “Thanks, this has been very helpful. Can I come see you again?”

Tyler shook her hand. “Please do. This is to be continued. There are many more nuances and hurdles women have to deal with in negotiation and I’d enjoy exploring those with you.”

Women in Negotiation

“Ty Gitou?”

A young woman stood in the doorway of Tyler’s office. Tyler came out from behind his desk to greet her.

“Yes, hello. I am Tyler Gitou. How can I help you?”

“My name is Janice Lumere. My friend Kevin Delclinchy is in sales with the company. He said you were the Deal Whisperer and you might be able to give me some advice on how to become a better negotiator.”

“I’d be delighted to speak with you,” Tyler said. “Please sit down. What are the issues you are dealing with?”

Janice sat in one of two chairs in front of Tyler’s desk. Tyler sat in the one next to her.

“Well, nothing just yet. I just got a job in the sales group and wondered if you had any advice on how to talk with potential clients. Most of the people I am working with are older and usually they are…”

“Male.” Tyler said. He smiled. “Let me compliment you on two points. First, your ability to recognize the fact that there is a difference between men and women in how they sell and negotiate. As much as we try to convince ourselves that we are all equal, women truly do have more hurdles to overcome when negotiating with men and other women. Second, your desire to address and overcome the problem. For someone so early in her career you are showing great maturity in taking action to resolve issues that might limit your success. Many young professionals believe that when they ask for help it is a sign of weakness. In fact, it is a sign of strength when you leverage others’ skills and knowledge to make an organization more successful.”

“Thank you,” Janice said. “Kevin spoke highly of you and I can already see why. So what are the differences and what can I do to address them?”

“There are many and we can’t cover them all in one conversation. But let me give you a start. First, when I say the word ‘negotiation’ what adjectives pop into your head?”

Janice thought a moment. “Difficult; confrontational; demanding…”

“And why do you have that perception when you think about negotiation?”

“Because I need to win and the other side wants to win and I have to overcome some overly aggressive male in order to succeed.”

“And what if you can’t overcome this challenging man?”

“I guess I have to hold my ground as long as I can and then in the end give in for the relationship.”

Tyler laughed. “That’s perfect. You have articulated a universal perception many young women and men have about negotiation. The difference is in what women and men typically view as the ideal outcome of that ‘competition’. The studies I have read on this topic say that women are challenged by a cultural barrier that causes them to believe that negotiation is confrontational. Because women generally focus more on relationship they often won’t counter an offer or ask for more because it might create a negative perception of them as ‘difficult” or ‘pushy’ thereby hurting the relationship. Their negotiation style then often runs from ‘compete’ to ‘accommodate’. Make a demand to get some movement but stop and concede before it might hurt the relationship.”

“That all resonates with me. I feel like I have been through that scenario. So what do I do about it?”

“Come see me next week and we will discuss two elements a Deal Whisperer uses to build a collaborative sales and negotiation environment: legitimacy and perceptions. If we focus on those two first, you will soon find yourself a more confident salesperson and negotiator.”

(See "Women in Negotiation Part 2.")
 http://dealwhisperers.blogspot.com/2011/11/women-in-negotiation-part-2.html

How To Have a Difficult Conversation

We failed.

We don’t have the money.

There’s been an accident.

These opening lines are not the ideal way to start a meeting. Yet sometimes, despite our best efforts, we have to have a difficult conversation with a customer, supplier or family member. Wouldn't it make you feel a little better if you had a way to prepare for such a conversation?

This week we will talk about some tools and analysis you can use to develop your skills handling difficult conversations. Unfortunately, the only way to improve is to keep having difficult conversations! But the experience will make you a much better negotiator as you build your confidence in handling tough issues, and turn that big knot in your stomach into a smaller knot. (No, it never goes away entirely.)

The key is to analyze as best you can the impact of the news and the likely response of the other party. From there you can develop the right way to sequence the conversation and manage your emotions to reduce the emotional reaction of the other party. If handled properly, difficult conversations and the efforts to address the problem can actually result in a better relationship with your counterpart instead of a worse one.

First, make sure you know what happened! Don’t have the conversation until you know, as well as possible, what caused the problem, what the situation is now and how you will remedy this for the future. Demonstrate that you have been diligent in researching the details. That said, don’t delay so that the problem gets worse; timely engage the other party if their input is needed.

Second, determine what the problem means to the other side from a business and personal perspective. Will it impact a business cycle? Are additional funds required? How does this affect their status in the organization? Did they “go to bat” for you? How will the other party react when they realize the implications? Be prepared to acknowledge the legitimacy of their emotions. “I understand this is a major issue for you and you have every right to be frustrated and angry about this.”

Third, acknowledge your mistakes. Relationships thrive on trust. Honesty is the single greatest element of trust. If you try to rationalize the outcome to shift blame, it won’t change the impact to the other party. But it will highlight that you care more about your self-interests than helping to mitigate the problem you just dumped in their lap. Nothing destroys a relationship faster than the suggestion of self-interest.

Fourth, know what outcomes you want from the meeting. Do you need the other side to make a decision? Take action? Inform others? Think about what the other party needs to do once they have the information and how you can offer to help.

Finally, and most important of all, rehearse. Sit down with a team member and role play the conversation. Practice saying the actual words you will use. Getting feedback in advance on how your words sound to someone else can avoid unnecessary perception issues.

Everybody knows that mistakes happen. The key to a successful difficult conversation is demonstrating candor in the cause, empathy in the emotion and remedies against repetition. If you work diligently and collaboratively to mitigate the impact, the other party will perceive you as a trusted ally worthy of a continued relationship.

Don't Put Emotion in Motion

Difficult negotiators often bring a lot of emotion to the table: bluster; frustration; accusations. Such behavior can make discussions inefficient and challenging (though sometimes quite entertaining). The last thing we want is for our behavior to produce more negative emotional activity.

But we often unwittingly do exactly that by not considering how our actions might impact the five core emotional concerns that drive building relationships with the other party: Affiliation, Appreciation, Autonomy, Status and Role. For example, when we act in a way that causes the other party to feel as though his/her Role or Authority has been challenged, we should be prepared for the emotional ramifications.

Suppose the other party assigns a new person, Tom, to be our sole channel of communication on all issues related to the negotiation. “What?” says Lou, the senior member of our team. “That doesn’t make any sense. I have worked directly with Kathleen for 15 years. I’m going to tell Kathleen how this will slow us down and cause us to miss the deadline.”

What are the potential outcomes if Lou goes to Kathleen to circumvent the process? One of two things will happen: Kathleen will either intervene on Lou’s behalf, or she won’t.

• If she does intervene, we will have leveraged our relationship and taken ourselves outside of the process. We also will have severely damaged our relationship with Tom by challenging his Authority and Role in the process.

• If she does not intervene, we are still in the process and we now must work with Tom in a potentially negative environment that we created.

So before we make a tactical decision to go over Tom’s head, and have Tom perceive we have no regard for his Authority and Role, we need to do some analysis about the process and the parties:

1. Who owns the process? Who set it up in the first place and how will he/she react to us challenging their Autonomy? What is the goal of having the process? Is that goal legitimate? If so, why are we challenging the process?

2. Who is Tom? What is his role in the process? Is he a decision-maker? A recommender? Or merely a facilitator? What is his Status at the company? How will our actions impact that Status if we, in effect, successfully neutralize him? Will we have to work with him again?

3. What are Kathleen’s interests in the process? If she owns the process and assigned Tom, how likely is she to remove him, or us, from the process? How good is our relationship with Kathleen? Is this the type of request that will improve our relationship with her? Or by being disruptive will we damage our Affiliation and Appreciation with Kathleen after 15 years of working together?

We can see that one tactical decision, made for what Lou believes are legitimate reasons, has many potential impacts on the five emotional concerns. A Deal Whisperer is always mindful of the potential emotional ramifications of words and actions and makes decisions that will improve the emotional health of the environment, not set the other side’s emotions in motion.

For more information on this topic, I recommend reading Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate by Roger Fisher and Daniel Shapiro (2005).